Turd sandwich, anyone?
This (via Classical Values) captures perfectly my feelings about the November elections. Except that I have never voted for a Democrat.
There are a lot of opinions, but nearly everyone is talking about the Republicans’ impending defeat. And almost everyone (including me) is disgusted with the Republicans.The truth is, I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t disgusted with the Republicans. My first vote was for McGovern in 1972, and since then, my disgust has ebbed and flowed. It wasn’t until Bill Clinton (whom I voted for) was president that my disgust over the Republicans was exceeded by my disgust over the Democrats. Since then, I’ve become convinced that the Democrats are irreversibly, permanently in favor of socialism — much more than the Republicans will ever be. The 9/11 attacks and the post-9/11 fallout also convinced me that the Republicans are better on defense issues. (I suspect there’s still a war, too.)
While it is true that in general the Democrats are better on many sexual and social issues, there’s also that sexual identity politics thing, which I don’t like too much. And I just don’t see sex as the leading issue in American politics. At least, I don’t think it should be. In this regard, the Foley scandal has caused me to be more disgusted with the Democrats than the Republicans, for I think their exploitation of the scandal is cheap demagoguery at its absolute worst. It might be revenge for Monica Lewinsky, but at least that involved actual sex (as opposed to cyber raunch), and it also involved perjury. Ordinary voters, though, seem to think Foley/Masturgate is actually an important reason to vote the Republicans out.
That people can be so stupid astounds me. I mean, it’s not as if there aren’t plenty of reasons to vote the Republicans out, but a single congressman talking dirty to street-wise pages? For which he’s already out on his ass?
Please.
Anyway, back to my point. I have long been disgusted with the Republicans — so much so that I’m almost tired of holding my nose when I go to the polls. Yet I plan to vote for them again, despite my disgust.
What is it that makes my ability to hold my nose in spite of my longstanding, seasoned disgust so apparently special? The way people are acting, you’d almost think there’s something new to be disgusted about. To me, it’s the same old disgust. I don’t like the war on drugs, the culture war, the endless politicization of genitalia, the pork, the refusal to stop the hemorrhage at the borders, but I don’t see anything new other than the Foley scandal (which, contrarian as it sounds, only heightens my disgust at the Democrats).
Maybe the problem is too much disgust, for too long. Is that an argument for voting Democrat? Why? I don’t think any Republican voter is dumb enough to believe Democrats will be less disgusting, so the idea must be that it’s time to change the disgust channel to a different kind of disgust program.
The lesser of two evils is not much of a choice, but it is a choice.
Posted on October 17th, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: politics
Entries RSS
Anyone who takes a hard look at the Jack Abramoff scandal, a news story without legs, has something new to be disgusted about. The culture of money, and the evaporation of ethics on K Street is bipartisan bad news for democracy. Very, very bad news.
I agree with much of what this guy said. For instance, I don’t like politicians - Republican or Democrat.
But what I hate even more are the “street-wise pages” to whom he refers. They got what they asked for, all dressed up in those school-boy clothes with such perky butts, and Foley just gave ‘em what they wanted.
Personally, I don’t care if there was a Republican cover-up, because it needed to be done. Pages have been walking The Hill for too long without getting what was coming to them.
The Foley thing reminded me of what Nietzsche once said - “Beware those in whom the urge to punish is strong.”
But that can be countered with another famous quote - “How can it be wrong when it feels so right?”
Spoken like a man with a future in Congress.
If we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, that will continue to be the chioce we are given.
I agree with you, ccl, but what do you propose instead? If we vote for the greater of two evils, then we will also continue to be given the same choice.
I am happy to vote for libertarians, but there seem to be precious few on the actual ballots. The republicrats are of one mind when it comes to third (perhaps second is more apt) party candidates: keep them off the ballots by whatever means necessary.
The republicrats also do everything possible to keep anyone else out of the debates. Can you imagine the fun of watching a libertarian, a reformer, a greener, hell even a commie, all join in the debates? Now that would be a true exchange of ideas.
I would love to see (but am not holding my breath) a “None of the Above” option. If NOTA wins a plurality, then the election is re-held with none of the previous candidates allowed to run.
Yo, Chris, you paradigm-shifting son of some great DNA. You make the rest of us look like the dusty old farts that we are. Do you think Monica Lewinsky got what she deserved? Or is there some point where persons in positions of power must, ethically, refrain from engaging in a ‘bit a de’ ole in-out in-out’ with their subordinates?
Now, back to being a dusty old fart. I was too young to vote in 1968 when the greatest constitutional criminal of my lifetime, Richard Nixon, was elected. But in November of 1980, I was 23 years old, and had to choose between incumbent-Democrat Jimmy Carter, Ronald Rea-guns (as Joan Baez pronounced it at the first Woodstock), and John Anderson, independent. I voted for Anderson and hyperbolicly vowed to leave the country if Reagan were elected. Reagan was elected and went on to become the second worst constitutional criminal of my lifetime.
I won’t make that mistake again. In U.S. political voting choices, I’m sticking with the lesser of two evils approach. If the two party lock on electoral politics gets broken in my lifetime, then the next round’s on me.
And don’t get me wrong, my revulsion at constitutional criminals (i.e. those who blatantly disregard constitutional limits on their power) is bipartisan. Nixon and Reagan just happened to be Republicans. I would condemn any Democrat who committed similar crimes.
Then, to be fair, you need to condemn at least Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, and Clinton (who deployed the US miltary 44 times, each without Congressional approval).
Point taken. Of your list, I’ll chastise Johnson because of the deceptions involved in securing the Gulf of Tonken (sp?) resolution on falsified data. But if we are going to move into the area of deploying the US military without a declaration of war by the Congress (as required by the Constitution), then offender number one has escaped your list. Hint: he introduced pre-emptive military action to his presidential arsenal.
Senor Malo,
I admit that I may have deviated far from zero, genetically speaking, but no one shifts paradigms quite like you. In fact, I actually witnessed you shift paradigms two or three times one night.
As far as my previous comment on pages, I just wanted to “poke fun” (coincidentally, that’s what Foley called it). I had never before heard the term “street-wise” when referring to high school nerds who spend a summer trying to “kiss ass” on Capitol Hill (if they were, they would have known Foley took that literally).
Bringing this comment back to the topic of choosing a lesser of two evils, you’re “in-out” reference from ‘A Clockwork Orange’ made me realize this Analogy (Foley’s major in college, in another amazing coincidence): Anthony Burgess’ book proposed that “a man without choice, ceases to be a man.” And, since it can be argued that our current electoral process leaves us without a choice, I realized that our democracy, without choice, ceases to be a democracy.
In my opinion, if We (those who dislike Republicrats) continue to choose for the lesser of two evils, we cast a vote against democracy.
Dear Senor Chris,
I love you, man.
Peace out.