Controversy Week: Politics

>Partisans for both sides annoy me about equally.

Lord, yes. Unless they're funny, but you covered that. I do wonder if the "They're evil!" "No, *they're* evil!" stuff motivates as many people as it alienates.

I'm equally disgusted by both parties in general and see about a hair's width of difference between them. That being said, Bush is a little too trigger happy for me to sleep at night and a little too willing to take a dump on the Constitution and wipe his ass with the Bill of Rights to ever actually even consider voting for him,. And while liberal is a poor way to describe me, I could probably be accurately described as a fairly nutty leftist radical type. Not the bomb throwing Trotskyite type, though, so Homeland security goons, you can fuck off. I'm all peaceful protest like, no terror threat here.

Ahem. Anyway, I guess I'll swallow my bile and vote for Kerry instead of voting for a random third party or writing in something clever like I usually do because I don't think 4 more years of W. is going to leave much of a country to protest against, much less love. I think we did the right thing, philosophically speaking, going after Afghanistan, but we sure as hell should have done it differently tactically. We might have the shitheels that actually attacked us if we had. Iraq was a clusterfuck from beginning to end and I don't want to take over your blog with pages of commentary explaining why. All Bush's efforts to roll back American society fifty years and make sure that everything is controlled by one or more multinational corporations is appalling. He's a kindler, gentler fascist and I mean that in the poli sci sense of the word, not the crazed lefty who doesn't actually know what a fascist is but likes it as an insult sense.

Anecdote time: I got assaulted for the first time since high school just yesterday for expressing the radical opinion that in America, we all have a right to vote for and support who we like, even if it isn't Bush. We're supposedly fighting for democracy in Iraq, but it isn't such a hot idea here, if you listen to the guy that did it. Of course, if you don't listen to him, he'll kick your ass. I have a nice set of bruised ribs to prove it. The doctor said none are cracked and I should be able to draw a full breath within a week or two.

I'd like to note, I didn't even say "I'm voting for Kerry" I just said "Don't we all have a right to vote for whomever we choose?" after he tried to rip a Kerry sign out of a woman's hands. What an asshat.

So, my biggest problem with libertarianism is that people are inherently stupid and selfish. Yeah, I'd love it if the government spent less and only spent money on the international essentials - trade, infrastructure, military, etc - and left it up to states to do things like welfare, medicare, etc. But I don't trust people to do the right thing, especially on a local level. Given the choice between funding a school and buying a new TV, they'll buy the TV. But that school still needs to be built and funded.

So yeah, I'm against libertarianism for that reason. But I really understand it well.

Kerry has a lot of weaknesses; the most notable one being that he's not the incumbent. While people don't like Bush that much, they know him. It's sort of like that psych experiment where they put a placard supporting something on your lawn; after a while, they find people like whatever it was more than they did before. Why? Because it's been there for a while - there had to be some reason they kept it up. I seriously hope that he isn't reelected, but it would not surprise me if he was.

For me, not letting the 2000 election go has nothing to do with the recount or the Supreme Court or electoral votes. It has to do with the disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters. That's not something that should be let go, especially when people are trying to make it happen again.

Other than that, I agree with a lot of what you've said. I feel like I've been the only one pointing out that if Kerry is elected (God willing), all of his plans will pretty much go kaput if Congress is dead set against him. And of course politicians aren't better people than average people . . . in fact, considering how much you have to swallow your own convictions just to get elected, it shouldn't be any wonder that politicians on the whole turn out a lot sneakier than average people.

See, that's why there kinda needs to be at least one house of Congress on the President's side if anything's going to get done. Doesn't matter which half, but ideally one should be Democrat and the other Republican. What we're seeing is what happens when one party completely takes over. It really won't be enough for Kerry to get elected. Either the House or Senate needs to fall into Democrat hands as well. The GOP may keep the other, but one needs to change hands.

kalbear: I'm not dogmatic enough to be opposed to government-funded schools; there's a clear economic benefit from an educated populace. But on the other hand, if you think individual people are too stupid and selfish to do things right, what makes you think the government is any better? It's made of of stupid, selfish people!

Marissa: I agree, but black voters have been disenfranchised in every election since they werre first allowed to vote. It's just that this time, it made a difference in the result, so people took notice.

mtvcdm: I don't mind having gridlock in Washington. That way, the only way anything can get done is if it's something both sides agree on. Suits me, since I think the government should probably be doing less.

"See, that's why there kinda needs to be at least one house of Congress on the President's side if anything's going to get done. Doesn't matter which half, but ideally one should be Democrat and the other Republican. What we're seeing is what happens when one party completely takes over."

Part of the problem here is very little attention gets paid TO the Congressional races. People just keep re-electing the incumbent most of the time because they don't know any better, because they just don't pay attention.

A friend has long been compiling a bi-annual guide to the various congressional candidates each election, and has found some ABSOLUTELY STUNNING information on people that keep getting re-elected -- stuff that makes Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar, Nixon look like an ethics professor, and Clinton look like a celibate Buddhist monk. (See, there, I was bipartisan in my jokes...) And these people KEEP GETTING ELECTED. And, these are the people that WRITE the laws.

I pay MUCH more attention to congress these days.

Monty, it's one of those odd things. When people are held accountable for their direct actions, they perform better. Or at least less stupidly. When everyone can witness what you do, selfishness can be made difficult or illegal - or both. People also are easily outraged at other's stupidity and selfishness - which is one of the checks in the political system.

Perhaps that's the key; making libertarianism work is as simple as holding each and every person highly accountable and reviewable for their actions and votes. Hmm. That might work.

It seems like a contradiction to be economically conservative and socially liberal. For instance, I hate that there are people starving and that health insurance is so freaking expensive that many people can't afford it (I REALLY hate that in this country it's tied to your job, of all ridiculous things, but that's another story). Therefore, I am somewhat in favor of social programs that help people who are down on their luck, especially since my family has benefited from them (my mom was briefly on welfare after being widowed at a young age with two children under 4 and having no job skills, and I have benefited from unemployment insurance). However, now that my husband and I have some money, I find myself wanting to keep it rather than give it to the government, who will probably squander most of it anyway. Does anyone else have this dilemma?