( 7:58 PM ) cxjo
so i just read this article from carol's blog in the ny times. and the other day i read this one on salon.com. the former is about the need for democratic nominees/candidates to pander to the lowest common demoninator to get votes... how democrats need to better represent middle america, hard workers, not be such intellectual coastal snobs (like me :p). the argument comes out of edwards, who seems to be qualified to make it as he comes from a blue-collar background.
the latter is an interview with a 60's anti-war radical who says liberals are doing it all wrong, and they need to think and behave more like the conservatives. huh?
so.. when i think of middle america, i think of tee-totalling dry county sanctity of life ends at birth sodom and gomorrah enviro-what? cut my taxes screw the poor. wait a minute.. that sounds like... republicans! that's it! these articles are in consensus: democrats need to be more like republicans if they expect to win!
now, i never felt i could identify with the republicans. i mean, i can see where they're coming from.. they're interested in doing the right thing, and they think that their way is better, regardless of what it takes to get there. the ends justify the means, consequentialism, karl rove and our old pal paul wolfowitz. but i don't identify with that. if i could reverse everything the bush administration did by sacrificing a handful of, say, kurds, i wouldn't do it. that's how i'm different from them. and now i'm just talking pure ideology, separate from how financial interest works its way into the equation.
now enter the democrats. i never felt i could identify with them, either. to me they always seemed more interested in funneling taxpayer money into senselessly inefficient programs and beauracracy than actually helping people or the environment. they want to get in on everything and have a finger on all that is going on so they can affect it because, again, their way is the best way. i'm more of a laissez faire kinda guy.. i mean, when it comes to legislation, i feel that less is more. the longer and more complicated a law is, the more likely it is that something in there is going to screw me, screw the environment, screw the poor, and make some rich beaurocrat or businessman richer. i'm sick of this "trust me, i know what's right for you" mentality from our "representatives". i mean, just look at feinstein's voting record!! and now she supported the $87bil!
next, let's look at the liberterians. for a while, i did identify with them. in fact, i was registered in their party until quite recently. the reasons? my distrust of authority. my despisal of government. my despisal of the two parties. there's no government like no government. but now i see the downsides of this path.. corporations will end up dividing the population and then driving the non-owning portion into oblivion as they only care to make money for themselves and their investors and everyone else is left tugging up on their bootstraps with essentially no protection from certain death. so forget about that.
finally, the greens. at least they believe in the same things i believe in: equality, human rights, taking care of where we live, respecting ourselves and others, not using violence, force, coersion, not letting corporations run the people, etc... but they can't garner enough popular support since those that believe in those things would rather vote for viable opposition to the hated other side.
arg. i'm going home. as soon as this finishes building.
Comments: Post a Comment