don’t worry, vote preppy
Americans will be going to the polls in a fortnight to chose which modern American aristocrat they wish to reign over them for the next four years. As you might easily guess, I will not be joining those of you who choose to participate.
I wrestled with that decision considerably and the abstention is not something I do whimsically or even happily. If you have read the earlier discussions here regarding this matter, you know that I have been properly chastised and hopefully sufficiently penitent for my dereliction of civic duty. My political angst is real and painful.
DavidR quite correctly pointed out that my choice not to vote stands for nothing. And I do agree with him on that point. But, I still just do not have the stomach to vote for any of the options that are available. I am weak-I know this. Though I will not be joining you at the polls, I would like to share my prediction on the outcome. And of course, I’d like to invite my readers to share their predictions as well.
Nothing has happened which has changed my opinion that Shrub will be re-elected. As I read the chicken bones, I do not see a landslide in the works, but I do think it will be a more solid victory than the last time.
My rationale for anticipating re-election continues to be the GOP’s extraordinary success in feeding and exploiting the fears of the American people. While it is true that there is a motivated contingent of Shrub haters out there, hatred does not even come close to fear as a motivator. I anticipate that the Religious Right and other John Wayne fans will be out in numbers that are unprecedented. The anti-Shrub crowd has nothing in its arsenal comparable to patriotically clad religiosity that Shrub uses to marshal the minions of the Religious Right.
You have to see this phenomenon on the inside to understand what I’m talking about. Its scary.
But if that is the bad news, the good news is that I do not think Shrub’s coattails will be long and we could see a Democratically controlled Congress. This could bring back the “bad” old days of “deadlock” so at least that possibility brings me some cheer. The only thing that disturbs me more than failing to achieve radical reform, is continuing on the path we are on. Political deadlock at least throws an obstacle in the way of the ruling class.
I am still wrestling with what I should do over the next two or three years to change my Disenfranchised status. Alas, it seems that other than casting a vote for the lesser of the evils that I will have no more choice then than I do now. Perhaps I should make an attempt to get my name written in on a few Texas ballots as a protest vote?
One thing is clear to me now: I would like to grow the readership of the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon. Originally, this was not a goal of mine but arguments here and elsewhere have convinced me that it is a small contribution I can make to attempt for a better America. Certainly no smaller of a contribution than casting a vote in the upcoming election. Any suggestions on how to broaden my circulation would be appreciated assuming you think I have something worthy to offer.
So there you have it: my predictions and predicament. I’m happy for those of you who feel that one of these two preppies represent less of a problematic vote than the other. Thrilled for those few of you who are actually pleased with your candidate in a positive way.
I’m genuinely jealous of that.
24 Comments:
I just wish I shared your slight hope.
TexaCon,
As always, appreciate the post. I think my perspective isn’t all that bad. It is hard to know how to respond exactly since I have already written most of the pieces to my answer. I’d refer you “gut check” and “value of the dollar”. Bear with me as I repeat some.
I too am extremely concerned that your Dad and the others who died in other conflict down through our history be remembered and honored. You won’t be surprised that I don’t necessarily agree that voting is “THE most important indication that those men and women did not die in vain”.
I feel strongly that there is no candidate that stands for what your Dad gave his life to defend. While we have throughout our history been victims of our political leadership in varying measures, the political machine that stands before you today is of a new and different quality. Nobody understands better than I that it is easy to fall prey to the temptation to believe that things have never been worse than they are today. This is partially why I have fought this conclusion long and hard.
But I can not and will not ignore the facts. I can think of no greater disrespect to our blood soaked Liberties than to cast a vote for someone that I am convinced is yet another step in the destruction of this formerly great Republic. I think when you mention your “belief in the power of voting” you get it exactly right: it is an article of faith for many. Unfortunately, that faith does not square with the facts.
I wish it were so simple that the discharge of my nominal “duty” would somehow right things and bring light into darkness. I wish a protest vote of some kind would matter to somebody, but clearly it does not. The hard truth is that unless I am joined in numbers, nothing will change.
I think if you are going criticize me fairly, you should tell me that if I am convinced that things are so dire, shouldn’t I be leading the charge for reform in some fashion. And I would agree with that criticism. I certainly think I should be, and writing here is indeed dabbling in how I might affect change. I am giving further thought to a book and other deeds that perhaps might serve as penance for what you perceive as my great moral failure.
You said, “I never want to be at such an ideologically-inverted state as to rationalize the refusal of this privilege.” I do not wish my political state on anyone else. It is not pretty. Voting is a “privilege” indeed for those who get the opportunity to vote in free elections. Now certainly the US election is free in the sense of you can choose between two candidates without fear of retribution for the vote. But there is nothing free in the choices because the two major parties are different sides of the same coin. Whatever illusions you and others may have, the truth is that you are simply choosing which set of gentry gets to call the shots for four years.
I just can not buy the simplification that by voting for either of these two preppy schmucks that I somehow make America a better place. Now if by writing here I can open some minds or at least make some people question the status quo in a serious fashion, I might actually influence the flow of history in some small measure. And to actually care enough to attempt to correct things through the hard work of public argument isn’t enough to honor your Dad’s death, then there truly is something I don’t get.
My hunch is that your and my dead ancestors wouldn’t be that offended by my trading a meaningless vote for countless hours of trying to make a difference.
If I may chime in here.
Abstain from the presidential election if you must, but please go to the polls and vote for you best representative, senator, or other elected official. Use this election as a time to teach your children about elections, government, the two party system, sticking to your principles, etc. Write in a presidential candidate that you think would be good. You had quite a few choices back in the primaries. Surely someone did not disappoint you so.
Prof. Ricardo
I strongly support your right not to vote. Heck I wish more would follow your lead. The more people who do not exercise their right to vote make my vote less diluted. I have always disagreed with the premise that a high voter turn out is good for America. A high voter turn out means a large number of ill informed citizens have voted. A classic example of this was in Milwaukee Wisconsin where the homeless where give cigarettes to vote. Yes they exercised their right but do you think they were informed? How about those voters in Florida who voted for Gore and Buchanan on the same ballot for President, do you think any voter who actually knew the issues and the candidate’s position on those issues would ever mark their ballot for both? I want the citizens who are uninformed or have no conviction to follow your lead. Yes make my vote mean more by decreasing the voter pool.
I roughly agree with the political observations that there is a 40% chance that Kerry will win, I also agree with the other percentages. I think W will carry a minimum of 276 in the Electoral College and a maximum of 317. One of the major impacts of this election will be to the Supreme Court. I think there could be as many as 4 appointments. Rehnquist and O’Connor have been mentioned many times and if W is reelected I see them retiring. Ginsburg has had health issues and many feel she may not serve 4 more years. Stevens is 84 and just because of his age could leave the court over the next 4 years.
Ricardo,
I think you under-estimate my Disenfranchisement and Curmudgeonliness. Let me see if I can disabuse you of this error. :-D
You said: “You had quite a few choices back in the primaries. Surely someone did not disappoint you so.” Incorrect. There wasn’t a single candidate that I felt good about...including the Green Party, Libertarian Party and Constitution Party. Further, I am committed to NEVER voting for a Democrat or Republican as a matter of principal.
You suggested: “Abstain from the presidential election if you must, but please go to the polls and vote for you best representative, senator, or other elected official.” That is a good point. I’ll check the ballot and see if there are any pro-life civil libertarians left once I rule out the Democrats and Republicans. My hunch is that the pickings are slim but I should at least look I suppose.
You further suggested: “Use this election as a time to teach your children about elections, government, the two party system, sticking to your principles, etc.” I couldn’t agree more! That is exactly what I am doing. I am considering taking him to an polling center so he can see the lines. If they let me, I could show him a ballot and the machine. I can tell him how his Dad never missed an election and about how proud I was to vote when I was younger. Then I’ll then explain to him what evil and corrupt people the names are on the ballot and ask him to help me tear it up before we leave. It is an opportunity I should not miss!
Your best idea for me was: “Write in a presidential candidate that you think would be good.” This is something I am still considering. I’ll let you know how that comes out.
TexaCon,
Man, you continue to make a lot of assumptions about what I think. No, I don’t think the tax system is illegal. Stupid maybe, but illegal, no.
You attempt to characterize what the Demopublicans stand for in left-right jargon illustrates how artificial the boundaries have become. Here is how you characterized it in part:
The problem is that these competing ideologies of taxing more to spread the wealth doesn’t coincide with the market economy that has thrived under Capitalism. I don’t know any Republican that doesn’t believe there should NOT be assistance for the elderly and the needy.
But assistance programs run totally counter to the GOP’s stated philosophy. And need I point out that the GOP was front and center in opposing those programs when the legislation was first proposed? It is easy enough to dig out similar example from the Democrats-I’ll leave that to you as an exercise. The Republocrats are simply engaging in ordinary political pragmatism. And I can’t criticize them in a way: at least they are clear what they are about-obtaining power.
At least we agree on one thing: Shrub will win re-election. This gives me hope that I can get you reformed before those internal contradictions cause permanent brain damage.
Anon,
I lack conviction? I don’t think that is very accurate. Lack a conviction on choosing between which of two preppies I would choose to run our nation into the ground-that would be true.
I’m glad my not voting helps you feel empowered. I also provide, for many, a great boost in self-esteem: clearly there are a lot of people who look at me as a negative example from which they can draw comfort over their own choice to vote for these vermin.
If I can be of any further assistance, let me know.
CG,
You said: “We were polarized before Bush 43, but I have to tell you, I have never had such a negative emotional reaction to a president before.”
I have to strongly disagree. The obvious recent example was 42. I think the Religious Right’s hatred of 42 is much stronger than the Left’s negative feelings toward 43.
The point of disagreeing is that I think this two-party axis is tearing us apart in more ways than just stupid policy. It is having all kinds of affects, none of which is good. The true axis of evil is the line drawn between the RNC and DNC poles.
CG,
I am tempted to just let this lie because you were obviously trying to be humorous. But then, I’m not much to just let things lie. Your reason v. supernatural is presented as if those are opposite viewpoints, when in fact there is a whole continuum of personal belief systems out there were reason and the supernatural co-exist quite happily. Indeed, the pure rationalist is rare in our society though I would concede that fact has quite a bit to do with the poor education of Americans that allow so many to hold contradictory points of view without ever examining in detail what they believe.
On the other end of that spectrum, there is only a fringe (albeit large and growing) within Christianity that advocates the abandonment of reason in a poor exchange for a simple minded untested ethos of faith alone. Orthodoxy has always been rooted in reason and in fact gave birth to modern science because of its insistence that the world is real and knowable.
There are a great many reasons to fire ole Shrub. Trampling the constitution and general stupidity to name a couple. Trying to boil it down to just Iraq is to fail to do justice to what a miserable failure this administration has been.
TexaCon,
Shrub being stupid may be tiring to his supporters, but it is no red herring. Since there is something like a million websites that document clearly what a moron he is, I’m not going to be redundant here. It is a legitimate issue as to whether a candidate has the brains and education (formal or otherwise) to serve as the leader of the free world.
You do make a very good point where you said: “How many politicians do you know [about] enter politics for something other than some grandiose derivative of obtaining more power? Whether that power will be used for good or evil, it is at the crux of any public service.” A good point, but one of the differences between us is the answer to the question of how the power will be used. Politicians pursuing power in an effort to use the position for good is only slightly more common than a Shrub admission that he made a mistake.
Unfortunately, you totally seem to misunderstand my position on the role of faith in public service. Specifically, you said: “I know Curmudgeon disagrees with this vehemently, but it’s funny how he would subscribe to some “don’t ask don’t tell” type policy on an issue with which he (curm) so readily identifies himself on being on the right of.” Let me see if I can make myself clearer.
I have ZERO problem with a person in public life speaking of their faith. In fact, I would prefer it from sincere people (Jimmy Carter, who I loathed as a President, comes to mind). My faith colors everything I do and every decision I make (albeit imperfectly and clumsily as well), and I would expect a President who generally shared my world view to be no different. If you are a Christian, it is going to come up. It is who we are.
What I have a problem with is how this President uses his faith in such a politically calculated fashion. He is often subtle about it (“crusade” – which was not subtle at all outside of America) and not so subtle:
You cannot be president of the United States if you don't have faith. Remember Lincoln, going to his knees in times of trial and the Civil War and all that stuff. You can't be. And we are blessed. So don't feel sorry for- don't cry for me, Argentina.
Yes, he really said that. I’m not quite sure how that quote helped him, but I liked it all the same.
I could go on extensively on this topic, but I will refrain-at least for the moment.
I suppose what mostly disturbed me in your last post was where you circuitously accuse me of condescension. (OK, not so circuitously.) It is my sincere intention to not be hurtful in any way when I write here or elsewhere, so if in fact you, or any of the gentle Disenfranchised Curmudgeon readers have taken offense, I offer my most sincere apology. As I have said many times before, it is much easier to give and take offense in messageboards than in ordinary conversation. I try to guard against that, but obviously I miss the mark at times.
And truthfully, I walk this line knowingly in a sense: when you speak of religion and say things that touch on people’s core beliefs, sometimes they get offended. I know that when I say Shrub is an idiot that is taken personally by many of the people who feel that he is THEIR GUY and get upset. They get more upset still if they believe that he is anointed of God to lead this country into their vision of capitalist Christendom. But I can not do much to assuage those who get troubled by facts.
I’ll continue to do the best I can at not giving offense. But it can be hard to do when the target of one’s commentary (power hungry politicians) are so offensive themselves.
I shall look forward to CG’s retort.
TexaCon,
On Jimmy Carter. I never meant to endorse his Presidency. There was nobody any more contemptuous of his foreign policy than I and since I used the word “loathe”, I think I made that pretty clear. I was referring to his Christian faith exclusively and using him as an example of someone who was sincere.
On condescension. Interesting in accusing me of condescension, the evidence you cite is apparently vocabulary. This from the person who gave us “trebuchet”-which I rather enjoyed I might add. I don’t think you are asking me to use smaller words are you? Again, I really don’t mean to be condescending. Perhaps I am and I will be on a look-out for that.
On Shrub misgivings. I acknowledge that at times I am probably a little too certain in my language condemning Shrub. Maybe. And you are correct, I don’t have a lot of doubt either. I could be wrong. Just maybe.
You ask some pretty good questions when you say: “What do you use to substantiate your beliefs and absolute conclusions? Give me some facts. Is it just a gut feeling? Is it 'divine knowledge' as CG refers to?” Now I have answered this in the sense of having written about it as a part of other subjects. Let me try to collect some facts and thoughts for you quickly. Sadly, I don’t have much time today.
First I’ll start with the gut instinct type of stuff. The smirks. The condescending attitude that seems to be unmistakable to so many other people as well. Since I am apparently condescending, I guess that might not seem like valid criticism to you. But more importantly at a gut level, I think Shrubs maneuvering of the political landscape with such proficiency to attain his party’s nomination is sufficient evidence to impute a presumption of lack of sincerity. Let me not mince words here. I am saying that I do not believe any sincere person of faith can rise to the top reaches of our two major political parties. The system is that corrupt.
On divine knowledge. Nope. Not claiming that-Unlike the bumper stickers I see comparing Shrub to Kind David and Moses.
Facts? Here ya go. Lying about the reasons for invading Iraq. Lying during the build-up regarding the intention of invading Iraq. Lying about knowing anything about Enron. Criticizing “nation building” during the election and after election who heartedly pursuing the necon vision of the American Enterprise Institute. Lying about the connection between Al Queda and Iraq.
Interestingly, I just read this little piece from Molly Ivins yesterday that points out a few more lies.
How about branding the greatest invasion of our civil liberties since the First World War with the NewSpeak term “Patriot Act”? And while on the subject, how about the incredible power grab in the name of “protecting” us? Doesn’t seem like the action of a sincere Christian to me.
What about endorsing a policy of torture in Iraq as I wrote about here. Or his lack of a Christian demeanor toward the homosexual community as I wrote about here. One of my all time favorite was his hypocrisy in criticizing Kerry for bringing the Bible up to criticize Shrub which I wrote about here. And how about when he stood by when his henchman called me a traitor which I discussed here. Would a sincere Christian roll back the limitation on Mercury pollution which produces autism and autism spectrum disorders in children as I described here? What about continually exploiting the fears of Americans for personal political gain as I discussed here?I could go on and on, but it gets boring. My sense is that the facts don’t matter much to people who accept Shrub’s declaration for Christ and do not follow through and question the fruits of his works as God commanded through the apostle Paul.
Try to laugh me off on the Crusade line, but that was a huge error in judgment. It evidences a overt hostility to people of the Muslim faith and perhaps more importantly, a complete lack of understanding about the challenges confronting us in the Middle East. Would a sincere Christian be this incredibly insensitive to the feeling of others? Or how about his famous “Bring it on” line? Does that sound like a Christian outlook?
I’m glad you weren’t offended. I guess I took that condescending thing too seriously. But, hopefully I’ve laid down enough facts to hold a little water. I guess I’m a little frustrated too at being accused of never backing things up when I have written so profusely on why I believe what I do.
I too want a President that is good for our country. Someone who actually defends the Constitution and values Liberty. Ideally, the President would be a Christian who demonstrates love and compassion for the sinful rather than calling the sincerity of all Christians into question through overt intolerance. And most importantly, a person who actually is willing to govern in the best interests of the people and to lead the Congress to do likewise rather than governing solely with a purpose to get re-elected.
I too think God is good for our country: I just don’t think Shrub is.
Tony,
I don't mean to be a nag. However, I am trying to paint a scenario where you can go to the polls and feel that you're accomplishing something. What if you ignore the presidential candidates and go for Veeps? What if you ignore all the men folk and vote for the 1st Lady that is least likely to embarrass our country?
OK, on a more utilitarian side, How do you insert BOLD, ITALICS, and LINKs into your messages? Me just a poor old accountant hasn’t figured this one out yet.
Thanks,
Prof. Ricardo
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Common Good,
Thank you for the info. You’re not as bad as your friends say. ;-D
C.D.: “Don't you have some rich guys who need you to hide income for?”
As a matter-of-fact I do. In fact, I hope to shift the tax burden single handedly from my clients to the rest of us taxpayers. However, I am not good enough to achieve the 12.6% rate that Tow-RAISE-Uh pays on her millions.
Look Ma, eye no how 2 high purr techs.
Prof. Ricardo
[4th try to get link to work.]
TexaCon,
Yes. You can count on me. I am a rock of discontent that will not be moved. :-D
I didn’t find your list of Shrub enemies very compelling for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that pretty much everyone you listed wouldn’t agree with me on too much other than disliking Shrub. You called it “unscientific”...I use a different word: worthless.
But one element on that list clearly does not belong there: Al Queda. Shrub has been a recruiting machine for them and while I doubt they like the guy, I’m sure they don’t hate him any more than they might hate you and I. My hunch is that they view him as a useful idiot.
Feel free to blow me off on the whole point of the two major political parties being corrupt beyond redemption: certainly much of the rest of America does. An objective look at the record of both poles of the real axis of evil pretty much compels that conclusion...but it is a free country and hey, maybe the world really is flat.
Heh. Yeah, I forgot all about all those Shrub Cabal justifications for invading Iraq. Totally passed me by! I am in a fog and just totally ignorant of everything going on in the world.
Why do you continue to follow this pattern and accuse me of being confused when I simply interpret the facts differently than you? I don’t accuse you of forgetting stuff ... merely being incorrect. I see this pattern of “argument” from the Right a lot and I just don’t get why anyone thinks that will work.
Anyway, what about the pile-o-experts that told us that *IF* Saddam had WOMD (sad that I don’t really need to explain that acronym) he would’ve used them long ago? Yeah, I’ve thought often about what could happen if those weapons got into the hands of the wrong people. That is why I have always supported going aggressively after the terrorists. That is why I have railed long and hard against letting North Korea and Iran develop nuclear weapons. That is why I support unilateral targeted attacks on terrorist facilities of all kinds. That is why I supported sanctions on Iraq.
Again, you fall into the trap of the political rhetoric and just assume that I am against taking action just because I oppose YOUR GUY. And yes, he did lie. All this revisionism doesn’t impress me much. Saddam supporting Al Queda defies common sense. I know of no expert on the Middle East that believes it was possible. Only the administration is making that argument. Feel free to believe the Shrub Cabal if you wish.
You said, “So you’re one of those that wants to blame the blind greed of a corporation on Bush?” Man, you are one serious conclusion jumper. First, I think Shrub is just a symptom of corporate greed, not a cause. Next, my point there was a narrow one: he lied specifically about knowledge that the Enron scandal was about to hit. I don’t have the exact quote, but I remember it well. It was a very small lie on the part of Shrub, but a lie none the less. Obviously given his personal relationships with some of the key players he had some advance knowledge-this has nothing to do with him being complicit in the wrong-doings. (It is certainly possible, but I have no knowledge of that and I am not making that accusation.) He merely showed his stripes in a very obvious way by trying to distance himself from his rich cronies. A small lie like this is of little consequence compared to what we are talking about, unless you take character issues seriously.
I am most surprised you don’t consider the invasion of Iraq “nation building”. Even the administration called it that when the rest of their rationale fell apart. I know you remember that the invasion was called “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. That labeling of intentions came BEFORE the invasion and the failure to find WOMD. Not to mention that Shrub’s key advisers called precisely for nation building in the papers that they wrote while working for the American Enterprise Institute. If you haven’t read how these folks scripted this whole thing years in advance, then do yourself a service and go out to the AEI website and do some reading. Hopefully it is still there (it was two years ago when I read the reports).
I don’t mean this is harshly as it sounds, but the perspective of most Americans needs a little maturing. This is power politics and it is seedy and ugly. In the immortal words of Deep Throat, “follow the money.”
Next, on the Saddam-Al Queda axis, you ask, ‘To believe your notion that there was no relationship would be to believe that out of 60+ countries in which Al Queda operates, Iraq was the one altruistic country that “just said no” to Osama.’ A few low level contacts between some Iraqi officials and Al Queda operatives does not a “connection” make. I realize that people who strive to defend Shrub with whatever scrap of evidence they find will believe such tidbits to be conclusive proof of a deep and profound relationship, but I take a more reasoned approach and look at the facts. The facts are that Al Queda was dedicated to the overthrow of Saddam. Iraq certainly supported terrorism against the West and provided support to different organizations. Al Queda operatives don’t all wear “I love Osama” lapel pins so that they can be clearly identified. That a few terrorists trained in Iraq or some money flowed on this occasion or that occasion proves absolutely nothing other than Iraq supported terrorism in general. That fact has never been in question.
I am hesitant to respond to your assertion that 4 or 5 years of Patriot Act is okey-dokey, but only because I am tired of explaining it to people. So I’ll try a radically condensed version and see if I can get the key points across. The problem with the Patriot Act is that it is blatantly unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power to pass that legislation. By allowing it to happen and having it never challenged in court, we have degraded our constitutional protections for all time. It isn’t enough that it passes out of existence in a few years because Congress has successfully asserted its ability to annul whatever constitutional protections it might choose. And this means that our inalienable rights are not so inalienable after all. The government understands this well. The Shrub Cabal AND Congress understand it well. It was purposeful and very deliberate as was demonstrated clearly in AssCroft’s testimony before Congress. This whole matter is far more serious than the Alien and Sedition Acts and other illegal acts of Congress because the trampling of our human rights was virtually unopposed.
There are dark days ahead for Americans. Very dark.
I apologize, but I must quote you in full on this next point. You said:
… endorsing a policy of torture in Iraq Do you really, really, really believe this? Do you really believe that President Bush would “endorse a policy of torture in Iraq?” The average American does not believe this, Curm. Believe it or not, they don’t. What information do you have that is so privvy to the rest of us. Quoting yourself on the subject hardly constitues substantiating this criticism. Would you agree?
Yes. I am positive Shrub endorsed it. I have no information that you do not. I read Rumsfeld’s admission that he endorsed those memos exploring the legal limits of how torture is defined. Watergate and Iran-contra taught me all I need to know about “plausible denial” for me to understand that Shrub was involved in the mess. You apparently choose to believe that the buck stops at Rummy, but that is naive. Not to mention all of Shrub’s remarks about standing behind Rummy after the memos were revealed. Hey, you can stand behind your tortured interpretation of the very simple facts if you want. As you told me, if it walks like a duck...
BTW, the only reason I have quoted myself at all is because I keep being accused of making substantive arguments.
{Sigh} I really don’t want to talk about gay marriage any more because I have spent such an incredible amount of time on it already. I’ll try to be brief again. First, I am opposed to State endorse marriage of any kind. It is a religious institution and I am offended that the government “licensed” my own marriage.
But, you are correct, under the Full Faith and Credit clause, Texas absolutely must recognize the marriages performed in Massachusetts. It doesn’t matter if it is cool to you or not. In a free society, unpopular choices are protected. That is fundamental to our system of laws.
But more directly to your query, you said/asked: “The basis for marriage is not love, let’s not be hypocrites. Otherwise, you’d have to be ok with a whole host of other non-traditional relationships such as polygomy, incest and beastiality. I know the latter seems harsh but when “love” is the basis for defining marriage, it opens the door to all types of non-traditional forms of relationships.”
First, I am morally opposed to homosexuality, polygamy, incest and bestiality. I have never said otherwise, never will. In a free society consenting adults should be able to do as they choose. Homosexuality and polygamy involves consenting adults. Incest and bestiality do not. Just because I believe something should be legal, doesn’t mean that I endorse or condone the behavior in any way.
On Kerry’s faith. Clearly my point wasn’t that I thought that Kerry was some tremendous man of faith. I am exhaustively on record condemning the guy. He just happened to get this one right. He just happened to point out Shrub’s hypocrisy and artfully bait the administration into a yet even greater display of its own hypocrisy. Hey, I know where Kerry stands on abortion. What part of my detesting the guy didn’t you understand? Again, you seem to think on this left-right axis and insist that somehow I be made to fit on to it. The world is just not that simple.
On mercury. Yes, I’ve read all of that stuff. As you can imagine, mercury is a hot topic at my house. I stand by what I said. I’m sure Shrub doesn’t desire that more kids be autistic, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t support policies that have that result.
On blaming the President generally. Hey, I don’t blame the ills of America on Shrub. He is just the current ring-leader. I blame the American people themselves. I blame myself for not doing more and for not growing up quicker and seeing the Republocrats for what they are. I blame myself for being an inadequate disciple of Christ. But to not put any blame on the Shrub Who Would Be King is unrealistic and contrary to an ordinary interpretation of the facts plainly before you.
And I have no idea what that big Dennis Prager quote has to do with me. Whatever errors might be therein, I have no intention of voting for Kerry.
TexaCon,
Thanks for the great response. It is fantastic to vigorously argue with someone without a breakdown in civility. I can tell you that most of the places I have posted over the years, the civility tends to break down pretty quick. I think this is in part because most of the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon readers know each other personally. It is hard to get too irritated if you already know the person on the other side is a decent sort that you genuinely like.
I wish it were not so difficult to type these response-reply-response-reply series of discussions. I’m going to do my best here to make this post readable. My apology in advance if the format makes things difficult.
You said: “I couldn't find in my statements where I accused you of being confused.” No, you didn’t directly say that. But there have been numerous times in which you said something like, “did you know....” and followed it with some very basic information. Implying, “well, if you knew this fact, you couldn’t possibly still support your position”. If I read too much into your words, I apologize.
Next, I need to explain that I honestly do not hate Shrub as a person. It is very hard for me not to I admit, but I am working hard not to hate anyone. I do detest most of his actions. I do not trust him that he is sincere. Yet he is but a man and does not hold the power to affect eternity and I understand that very well. It is for God to deal with him and I, not other men. And truthfully, when I see Shurb’s witness for Christ, I quake and tremble at my own short comings.
Sorry to make you so angry with my “praise” of Kerry. But frankly, if I did, that might give you a taste of how I feel about Shrub’s continual sanctimony. I rankle a bit at your characterization of my remarks, but I suppose I have to live with that generally: it is hard to be totally unambiguous in everything you write.
On lying and facts. It appears to me that the only lie that you are willing to call a lie, is one where Shrub says something like, “the sky is red” and there are a hundred witnesses to contradict him. Again, I would urge you to consider history and what we know about how Presidential administrations are set up to systematically give the President “plausible deniability”.
We have a great example of how this works in the torture memo scandal. You wisely set that discussion aside for a later time because it will take a lot of effort to explain that away. I won’t insult you or anyone by explaining how all this works. But it is no accident that the chain of evidence ends at Rummy. The most amazing thing is those that have suggested we should be impressed with Shrub’s loyalty to the man! No kidding! Presidents usually do love their fall guys.
On Iraq sanctions. I never meant to suggest that we should’ve limited our Iraqi intervention to just sanctions. I do believe that the sanctions and no-fly limitations that were in place had contained Saddam effectively. Eventually, the man had to be brought down. I really don’t think there is much profit in beating this discussion much further. It is very clear to me that more effective diplomacy would’ve improved our position substantially. It is equally clear that the Shrub Cabal’s inadequate security and infra-structure commitment for the occupation of Iraq borders on criminal.
I must pause to make one point on this perfectly clear because I have been so often misunderstood and accused of holding positions that are remote from my actual views. I have never said that we should bow to the international community in these sense of being bound to the decisions of the UN or even our allies generally. Part of leadership is at times stepping out and acting. That said, in equal measure I do not think we should be disrespectful of world opinion and I do think our traditional allies have earned some deference up to a point. Because I think it is abhorrent that the Shrub Cabal thumbed its noses at the international community does not mean that I am at the opposite extreme. What I in fact have called for very consistently is a continuation in our proven historical approach to international relations.
But since you asked, I will be more specific as to what I would’ve done. First, I would’ve never begun the build-up for invasion prior to consulting our allies. I have explained in this discussion what I mean by this, so I won’t repeat it again (though perhaps I need to since you still seem to think that Germany and France’s intransigence was inevitable). Second, I would’ve never considered moving on and attacking an already contained Saddam until the mess in Afghanistan was cleaned up because I understand that the battle in the Middle East is primarily one for hearts and minds. Once I had garnered the support needed for a huge nation building exercise, then I would’ve considered acting militarily.
In my preparation for military action, I would’ve prioritized the humanitarian aspects of the occupation. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight on my part. Check with CommonGood, among others, for verification, but I was saying well before the invasion that the humanitarian aspect of occupation was crucial and that I didn’t trust the Shrub Cabal to do it right. Truthfully, if I had predicted how the occupation would be handled, I would’ve predicted that they would’ve done a better job than what they actually did. Even skeptical, curmudgeonly me is stunned by the ineptitude actually displayed.
Perhaps more importantly than anything else, what the administration has failed to do in the fight against terrorism is to deal with the Palestine conflict. I hesitate to mention this only because it is a big topic in its own right, and I don’t want to spend huge time on it right now. In short, attending to this matter should be job one. I can elaborate further if you like since you will probably accuse me of not being specific. I have not been specific here, but I have some very specific ideas that I have presented in other fora in the past.
You asked, “Could you, or some super-president, afford to wait for the threat to materialize to the point where we saw the white of their eyes?” These are serious matters, so I will not dismiss your question lightly as is my first temptation. I am tempted thus because I am one of the people who was sounding the alarm prior to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. I have been urging action for nearly two decades so I find it ironic that now people who support our knee-jerk president accuse me of being the naive one who doesn’t want to act.
The point is that I think the threat to civilization is far more severe than almost anybody I know. It is so severe, that quick and impetuous actions may well jeopardize our ability to ever set things straight. This severity is what makes it urgent that we lead in a thoughtful way and not say stupid things like “You are either for us, or against us” and referring to the conflict as “this Crusade”.
The enormity of what confronts us calls for more measured leadership and a perspective past the next election. There are three specific crucial areas in which Shrub has totally failed to lead. I have mention each one, but here is the list: 1) National Energy Policy, 2) the Palestine question, and 3) securing American borders. Failure far too mild of a word really.
On Iraq not attacking on 9-11. It was the Shrub Cabal that made this an issue. They are the ones that consistently made this connection and to such an extent that something like 70% of Americans at one point believed that Saddam was directly involved in 9-11. As DavidR said here before, that is just bone-crushingly depressing. You are correct, the Taliban did not participate in 9-11. Um, where exactly did I say I supported crushing the Taliban as a direct response to 9-11? I didn’t, did I? Does that mean I have a problem with taking out the Taliban? No, not at all. It was the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons. Of course, effective reasoning doesn’t appear to be anything that is familiar to this Presidential administration.
You said, “But the fact is, if I waited/hoped for a party to share all or 90% of the characteristics of a party that would have my complete and unwavering support, there would only be one member of that party...”. That is fair criticism, but I don’t think my minimum standards are that extraordinary: I seek a party that is committed to human rights including those of the unborn child and which is not a part of the axis of evil. Pretty sad don’t you think that there isn’t a political party out there that represents that viewpont? I have said for some time that I would compromise on any other issue if some candidate (forget party) would just get those two issues right.
On accusations of my desire for inaction: Here is what you said that made me think you were accusing me of desiring inaction:
I don’t consider what we did in Iraq as “nation building” because of the threat they posed. I suppose that before 9/11, we had the luxury of waiting for threats to materialize. This idea of not shooting until we see the whites of their eyes seems pretty silly after losing over 3000 people in one day. I know that didn’t change you. Just the rest of us, I guess.
On the Enron matter. Again, unless I have the tape recording proof you will be unsatisfied. This is characteristic of someone who wished to give the benefit of the doubt. Common sense tells us that this was a lie.
On the American Enterprise Institute. Truthfully, you must read this stuff. It is hard to have an informed opinion about this administration’s Iraq policy without being aware of what Shrub’s key advisers were advocating years in advance of 9-11.
On civil liberties. It is hard to know where to begin. You share with most American a fundamental misunderstanding of how our legal system was designed to protect our civil liberties. This is not your fault, but rather the natural product of an inept educational system.
You said, ‘So when our “system of laws” does not enfranchise the thoughts and beliefs of 75% of the people (by conservative estimates) we should just deal with it?’ Yes. That is exactly how our system was designed. I am very grateful to NOT live in a democracy. Our founders understood well that the worst tyranny imaginable is a tyranny of the masses. Protection of the minority against the majority is built right in. I can explain in detail the legal mechanisms if anyone cares. But it can all be wrapped up in what Constitutional Scholars call the “Counter-majoritarian principal”.
There was a time when a majority of Americans opposed all kinds of things that today seem ridiculous to us. Slavery, mix-race marriages, consumption of alcohol and contraceptives to name a few. What isn’t immediately apparent to many well-meaning people is that the counter-majoritarian principal ultimately protects us all from the over-reaching of the majority. It is a difficult thing to accept at times, but it is the price of living in a free society.
The good news is that on the legal merits, you clearly lose this argument. It doesn’t matter how many people are on your side if our legal system is operating as designed. The bad news is that it isn’t operating as designed and thus we get the (Un)Patriot Act and a slow dismantling of eight hundred years of progress in man’s fight against the crown. In truth, this battle has already been lost, but I continue to fight it because I am stubborn and truly incensed over the desecration of our Constitution in the name of “patriotism”.
You said, “School me. I thought incest was incest irrespective of age. Two brothers couldn’t marry their two sisters (even if Fox paid for it) can they? Those are two consenting adults. Should our system of government endorse that?”
First, I stand corrected on the definition of incest. I do think any consensual adult sexual activity should be legal. My reaction to the word incest is first to think of child abuse. And no, our government should NOT endorse any kind of sex-including good old fashioned missionary position heterosexual sex for the sole purpose of procreation. It is none of the government’s business.
On Don’t…stop…thinking about tomorrow. Well, I wish I shared your optimism that everything is magically going to come up roses in Iraq. And I love it when I get lectured about taking the long term view. I’ve said from the start that what we first have to do is the Right Thing, and then we have to wait about sixty years for everybody to die. Trust me: I get that a conflict that has been going on since the time of Jacob isn’t going away quickly.
I’m sorry, but your version of the future is the rose colored glasses scenario. Until we get an appreciation of the Arab mind and deal with root causes, there isn’t much that will change. Until we start lending a hand instead of forcing our superior way of life on others, we will make nothing but more enemies. Yes, Democracy can work as long as we set the stage and allow it to blossom on its own.
TexaCon,
Looking forward to a response...I think we are both pretty tenacious so this could go on for a while.
Mistakes in war are indeed inevitable. Your Battle of the Bulge example is particularly apropos. I was not aware of the full extent of the mishandling of intelligence by SHAEF during the lead up to that battle until I read “A Time for Trumpets” a couple of years ago. Unlike you, I don’t simply waive my hand as say “ah well, so it goes” when serious lapses in management occur. There were consequences to the SHAEF staff that didn’t get the job done. And there should be serious consequences for the ineptitude of how the Iraq occupation could be handled. Foreseeing the need for internal security did not require any special insight. The best evidence of that is the fact that not a single oil well was blown in Iraq. It seems clear that this administration was able to do some excellent planning in areas they put a priority on. Clearly, it is a shame they didn’t put much priority on the welfare of the Iraqi people.
Your comment on the Media is exactly correct. The media does distort the picture we get of war. In WWII, the media largely collaborated with the military.
I guess I’m going to have to read the 9-11 report just so that when people such as yourself bring it up, I can be very specific with my utter dismantling of it. The truth is that the facts on 9-11 deliver enough blame to cover just about everybody in Washington. The report is a political document designed to give minimal cover to people in the administrations of 42 and 43. The great chuckle of the 9-11 Commission is the “bipartisanship” mumbo-jumbo. This is just another example of where when both Republicans and Democrats are at risk, the join forces an protect the family.
I too wish you had more time. I think you need the educational opportunity I provide.
:-D
TexaCon,
Ah, good info from the Moonies website. Man, you really need to reconsider your news sources.
I hope you aren’t hanging too much on the fact that those explosives can be used in nuclear weapons. Having some plastic explosives around is so far off from having actual WOMDs that the point isn’t worthy of you. Show me some enriched uranium or vats of anthrax and you’ll get my attention.
But, believe it or not, I don’t doubt that Saddam had WOMD programs at one time. With the sanctions in place, he was able to do very little no matter what his intentions may have been.
CG,
In a broad way, I agree with your last post, but I must take exception to where you said: “...civilians continue to interfere with the military... it should be criminal for a civilians like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to dictate troup numbers to the military (Shenseki and Franks).”
I think civilian control of the military is an important element of our freedom. The problem isn’t the civil control per se it is when the president over-rules the military advice without sufficient deliberation. One perfect example of this was where TexaCon brought up with Lincoln’s deference to McClellan during the civil war (specifically, the peninsula campaign). McClellan was a very competent general in most respects, but had one flaw: he never saw a troop count that he considered adequate. Time after time he squandered opportunities because he did not think a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 advantage was adequate. Now arm chair generals such as myself can be glib in our criticism of McClellan because it isn’t us making life or death decisions. But, Lincoln finally saw the problem clearly and fired his super-star general
The point is, there is an inherent bias in the military to always want more troops and some times that can be a strategic disaster. Poor execution of the Pennisula Campaign probably drug the civil war out at least two more year. Some times the generals don’t get it right, so just quickly blaming civilian meddling is to over-simplify. That said, I don’t really disagree that too much politics and too little listening is exactly what happened in Iraq. The problem though is poor civilian leadership, not the fact of that leadership.
TexaCon,
First, a general observation. I’m going to keep my response short in part because my time is limited, but mostly because we are starting to repeat the same things over and over. I’ll try to touch on everything is some way.
On the reasons for invading Iraq. I think I can boil it down to you give Shrub the benefit of the doubt, I do not-I am a simpleton who just assumes things are the way they appear to be.
You said, “I do believe [Shrub] has the necessary characteristics to fight this war and given the option of Kerry, who has a long history of opposing confrontation (even with our allies in ’91), I “quake and tremble” at the idea of having him take office.”
You were baiting me, right? Of course the option is not simply Kerry. We elect who we want and we can do much better than this. As for the characteristics to wage a holy war, undoubtedly you have your man.
You said, “On your praise of Kerry – again, comparing Kerry to Bush, I just don’t see the comparison.” I give the guy one compliment, and you act like I’m his campaign manager. Sheeze.
On lying I really don’t understand your rebuttal on that point. Never once have I suggested Democrats are superior. I am comfortable with calling what he has said lies and I have a lot of company. I am glad you feel good standing pat on your faith in the man. Good feelings can be nice.
On Whigs. Personally, I don’t care what happens to the Democratic Party, but you are far from the truth on that one. The two major parties have institutionalized their existence in the laws of our lands. The two parties will live and die together. Since the American people don’t seem to be interested in actually considering issues, I don’t see much chance anything changes soon.
You said, “I’m still putting off torture. I’m building on your mental anguish.” I’m not anguished over it. I’m anguished over the fact we have a President that would create the climate that it could occur, but the probability of your defense of the administration troubles me not the slightest.
On the Shrub Cabal’s Diplomatic Failures. Yeah, I know you disagree. I believe what 50 years of history and common sense compel a reasonable person to believe. You believe what the administration tells you. I have historical facts, you have political assertions.
And BTW, in case you were wondering, I’m not a big pro-UN guy either. I just don’t believe in thumbing our noses at them either.
You asked me to be specific on what I mean by the President’s criminal failure to address the Iraqi infrastructure. What I speak of is the lack of security forces for people (obviously, there was no lack for the oil wells). The total unpreparedness to deal with the aftermath of the invasion.
You said, “On the I must pause – I don’t want to throw you into the “global test” bucket but we DID show them deference by attempting to get a second resolution.”
That is full strength bull-feathers. Get your head into some clear air my friend. The administration’s dalliance with the UN was meant to do nothing more than to satisfy the easily persuaded that the administration has done its best. After a years worth of callous indifference to any opinion outside the White House, they go directly to the UN to plead the case. I’m sorry, that just does not pass the smell test. Everybody knew that the Shrub Cabal was planning on invasion. It was clear to me far in advance that they had made up their mind already and didn’t give two hoots what anybody else thought. The funny thing is, the only people in the entire world that don’t get it is the GOP backers in the US.
You said, ‘Again, I go back to DeVillepin’s statement – “nothing justifies war in Iraq.” Given all the information on WMD provided by the Jordanians, Egyptians, Russians, Mi-6, etc, inaction would have been a failure to protect us given the boldness of the 911 strike against us.’ Repeating this crap over and over will not make it true.
Then you said, "In the CNN-world we live in today where Bin Laden is quoting Michael Moore, what makes you think they were going to sit on their hands while we tried to convince the French these are bad people.” I have tried and tried to understand your fascination with the French on this whole topic. Even if I admit for discussion your rather contorted view of France, it doesn’t change my assertion that Shrub was offensive to the entire world.
Then you said, “The build up is a judgment call and one that, in light of all the covert intelligence efforts HAD to be done. Woodward’s book specs this out pretty well. If the people providing the information to the CIA teams didn’t believe we were going and that there was some buildup, the information would not come in. It’s a judgment call and one to which we are not privy to all the details. You are welcome to disagree with it however, you nor I were in a position to make that call.”
Every time I hear this argument, I physically have to work at not puking. Not only is that circular, it is unrealistic. I am absolutely in a position to make the call. If there is all this secret information that only Shrub knows, then it is way over due for him to share...he won’t, because there isn’t.
You said, “I dismiss your premise of getting Judas and Germany on board out of hand since that would have NEVER happened. They only agreed to the ’91 resolution because it did NOT call for regime change. Look it up.” There you go again. Hey, I know about it. I stand on the evidence of 50 years of history; you stand on your faith in Shrub.
Then you said, “The humanitarian effort was unprecedented! There were even a sleuth of liberals involved in this effort. How could you use this as a criticism.” With a speedy stroke of the Pen of Truth, thats how. Hey, I’m glad we got some food and stuff in there. But lets talk about the security situation that still has not been resolved. Please, it was a mess.
On Winning Hearts and Minds. Oh Yeah, the did just a lovely job, didn’t they? The part I loved was the pictures of the Army and Marines standing there while the looting went on. Listen, I don’t have the time or interest in going back and reconstructing the humanitarian relief farce that followed the invasion. It boils down to the fact that you trust them when they tell you they did the best they could.
On Palestine You said, “I don’t want to insinuate you are confused or that you don’t know this but this criticism of this administration falls short and lacks credibility.” Hey, nobody knows better than I that I lack credibility. Pretty much everybody I know...especially my friends...have called me some words along the lines of wacko. Trust me, I know this better than anyone.
But, I am still ardent in my desire to educate, and it is my fervent prayer that you are not beyond repair TexaCon, though my hope has dimmed a bit. In all fairness to you, you really have not heard a decent articulation of my view on Palestine, so I will not chide you on your misapprehension of my views.
Here is the short version of what I would do about Palestine: 1) Bullet between the eyes of Yassir Arafat, 2) International occupation of Jerusalem, 3) declaration of Jerusalem as an international city permanently under the control of a multi-national ruling body that includes Israel, Christian and Muslim nations. In short, I don’t advocate negotiating a peace to a conflict that has raged since the time of Jacob-this is one area where we should impose a solution.
Yeah, the militant right in Israel undoubtedly loves Shrub. I can’t remember Brent Scowcroft’s words, but there is little doubt Sharon and Shrub draw energy from one another.
I am certainly not a Francophile. I just sound like one at times because of people’s irrational anti-French hysteria. Saying that France doesn’t know about terrorism is insulting to the French people. I know most Americans have forgotten about anything that happened prior to 1980, but I doubt the French have forgotten their own troubles of but a few decades ago.
I have no idea what you meant when you said: “On the point that you think is the threat to civilization – this reeks of the Clinton response to attacks – barracks bombing, Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, I guess that’s what he was doing with the help of Richard Clarke right? He was being “thoughtful” and that approach led to UBL making a statement that “he has seen the American soldier…and he is weak” because we did NOT respond.”
On borders. You said, “And I’m specifically referring to Mexico, not sure if you are or not but I suspect you are.” I’m referring to all borders...especially the coast line.do ANYTHING about this. Only someone like McCain will do something on this.
On Media. You said, “On the 70% of Americans thinking Iraq was directly involved in 911 - even MOLLY IVINS blames this on the media. Ha! I consider this a blog slap since you didn’t point this out. [Doing the blog slap dance…]” Yeah, but Molly was specifically condemning the media for its FAILURE TO CALL SHRUB OUT ON ITS DISHONESTY. I don’t dance well, but I can hum a snappy blog-slap tune.
You said: “I distinctly remember you stating that you supported the war in Afghanistan (against the Taliban) but if I misquoted you on this, I concede this point. If you are using semantics to say we should have gone but not for 911 just in general for the humanitarian reasons and oh by the way after 911 is just as good a time as any then I’d question your retort on this matter.” I said going after Al Queda was a good thing in response to 9-11. Taking down the Taliban should’ve been view as a humanitarian effort. They way the US helped screw that country up, we owned them straightening out the mess. Sad that we could not follow up on that need either.
On Cheap Shots. Yeah, I probably shouldn’t have cheap shotted the administration on that one though it wasn’t that cheap. Too many good shots available to waste my time. It really wasn’t even an accurate shot...I think there is nothing wrong with their reasoning: they are doing a very effective job a duping people into believing they have our best interests at heart.
On Enron. Hey, this isn’t a court of law. The fact I might not be able to convict Shrub on the evidence doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty. In a world where OJ roams free, this is unsurprising. Again, you give him the benefit of the doubt, I consider the facts and their ordinary meaning.
On civil liberties You said, “... why can’t we vote? If people had voted that slavery should be allowed then a whole set of other people would have to overturn that. I will concede to all your points made on the basis of your law background, I still disagree with the premise that if there is an issue that is being forced upon by courts of liberal states, the people HAVE A RIGHT to vote on it.”
Yeah, I have an advantage here. This is probably worth a phone call so that I can explain natural rights to you. I have to be very brief. We have our human rights because of our humanness. Our system of laws is built on this simple fact: the individual is sovereign. The government only gets to legally infringe on those rights to the extent that individuals cede those rights to the government. So, if you are talking about personal freedom, there is nobody else that has a say in those matters. The only legal way to change it is by Constitutional Amendment. So in the matter of Equal Protection of the law, the majority does not count. The Rights of the Minority (even if only one person) are supreme. This is not a democracy, Thank God, and you are far better off for it.
On incest. – I don’t know where we went off the rails here. But, I would allow two adult brothers to enter a civil union. Note I don’t use the word marriage, because marriage is a religious institution.
On Iraq’s future. You said, ‘how can removing a dictatorship NOT be categorized as the “right thing.”‘ This is an ends justifies the means argument. You are better than that. Sure, removing a bad ruler is good, but that doesn’t sanction any action in furtherance of that goal.
Lastly, you said, “On my version of the truth. Again, agree to disagree. The best case scenario is no strife, no funded opposition to our efforts, no killing of innocents to push the American gut check-ometer, no Al Qaeda tapes…My version is a bit more optimistic but not perfect. I think it will be 4 generations or so in the making but we will see some fantastic things during our life time...I hope you may decide to admit that you notice it.” If I am wrong, I will freely admit it. I pray every day that I am wrong. So far, I have been pretty accurate on the Mideast. I think you are naive in your assessment of Shrub and events will prove me out. I truly hope I’m wrong because only if I am wrong can things play out in a way that results in a world that is a better place for my Son.
Trust me. I have no joy in being correct.
I'm truly glad that voting for a rich preppy political hack makes you feel so good. As I told TexaCon, good feelings are pretty nice while they last. Enjoy it quickly.
TexaCon,
Well, as you can imagine, I don’t exactly agree with old Sun-Tzu. While certainly there are situations in life where it is true that common friendship can be found in common enemies, life is far more complex than we v. they. Again, I view this as a part of the problem of an artificial two dimensional though space in to which things are inevitably crammed here in America.
Ultimately, I think you fail to see how wholesome is admitting that I am disenfranchised by the mainstream ideas. I refuse to vote for those who trample our hard earned Liberty cavalierly. I will not vote for those who trample on defenseless life. I will not vote for those who seek first to consolidate power in an elite ruling class. Soberly recognizing the reality of what Democrats and Republicans stand for is the beginning of healing. While I may be angered toward our society in a general sense, I am personally quite happy to have a sense of proportion in these matters.
Yes, it saddens me greatly to recognize that America as I knew it in my youth is in fact quite dead. But it is equally liberating to understand that the America of my youth was an anomaly in time and that now we are simply transforming into a society that is more typical of what the world has always been. Back when, I placed far too much faith in America, but now I can with greater clarity of mind place my faith squarely where it belongs, and that is on the saving blood of Jesus Christ.
I still cherish my present freedom and am deeply reverent toward the past generations who gave their lives toward this noble end. My gratitude will never cease even as I see those Liberties being eroded around me daily. But it is that very gratitude that compels me to cast a sober and unflinching eye on America as it is, not as it was or I wish it to be. The very sacrifices of our past impose a duty to perform a frank and honest assessment in order that we might retain even the slightest shred of hope. And since that hope is rooted in our God given Liberty, it is not an insignificant thing.
Your response is interesting in that I can not, in spite of my best efforts, seem to make any progress at getting you to resist trying to slide me along the two dimensional axis of evil. I can do nothing further I fear to help you see that I do not fit well in the cramped quarters of Flatland. Because I stand opposed to those of the left and right who would trample our freedoms, it does not follow that I align somehow with the other extreme in any way.
It is nothing new for me to have someone from the Right to label me as a friend of whatever left wing radical or radical cause they might choose (Marxists, Sharptonists, Clintonistas), as it is equally familiar to me to be labeled as a friend of right wing radicals (Shrubistanis, neo-nazis, knuckle-draggers). It is the source of some amusement to me that I have been called all of these things and yet those making such assertions can not see the folly of their own philosophically claustrophobic condition.
So I will end this fair joust with a challenge. I do not challenge you to agree with me-no that is not to be. Rather, I challenge you to see my viewpoint for what it is, and not what you think it must be.
Post a Comment
<< Home