?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Politics - and excellent video and some thoughts on voting in November - Synchronicity swirls and other foolishness

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> my rpg writing site

June 11th, 2008


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
12:56 am - Politics - and excellent video and some thoughts on voting in November
Here's an excellent & short political video that it well worth seeing.



I'll post an essay going into considerably more detail in September or so, but for now I'll just say that I urge everyone considering voting for independent candidates for any federal level office (I trust that no one reading this is foolish enough to consider voting for any federal-level Republicans) to vote a straight Democratic ticket this November, not because the Democrats are especially marvelous or wonderful - mostly they're overly timid centrists. However, for the past 30 years the Republican party has been vile and horrid and for the past 7 it has been monstrous beyond words. Currently, both individual and corporate donations to the Republican party are down significantly compared to previous elections. What voting for the Democrats in November does is help insure not just large-scale Republican losses, but exceedingly severe large-scale Republican losses. This is badly needed because it will cause the Republican party to reshape itself into something at least somewhat less monstrous, if for no other reason than that bad losses mean even less money, and every political party rises and falls on its ability to obtain money from its supporters and few people and corporations support hopeless losers.

The biggest problem in US politics today is that if one of the two parties is monstrous, the other party will be attacked for not being monstrous (such as accusing politicians who object to torture of being "soft on terrorism"). In addition the evils of one party allows the other party to be lazy, because all they need do to gain votes is to be significantly less monstrous - they don't have to worry much about being an actual positive force - the end result being Presidents like Bill Clinton, who was vastly better than any possible Republican, but also very far from a good President.

The Republican party has been primarily the party of bigots, hate-filled religious zealots, and the dangerously paranoid for at least the last 30 years and they've largely been in charge of the federal government for most of this time. It's well past time for to change both these things. A sufficiently bad Republican loss in November would help accomplish this change. I urge you all to help be a part of this change, even if you normally vote for the Green Party or some other third party. If we can clean up the Republicans even somewhat, then there will be vastly more room for non-ultraconservative ideas to flourish and spread.
Current Mood: hopefulhopeful

(16 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:scholargipsy
Date:June 11th, 2008 08:32 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well said.
[User Picture]
From:alobar
Date:June 11th, 2008 09:20 am (UTC)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

(Link)
Dems won majority in Congress and Pelosi told us that impeachment was off the table. Conyers has been deflecting energy and money away from any real activism. The dems keep voting to fund Bush's war crimes.

I say the whole lot of them need to be indicted for international war crimes, then executed.

Do you really think the dems are suddenly going to grow spines and balls, even if Obama gets elected?
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:June 11th, 2008 09:48 am (UTC)

Re: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

(Link)
Have you noticed all the Republican voting in a block to filibuster all manner of things. Look at the party splits on a lot of recent votes - the Democrats have a razor-thin margin in the Senate and the Republicans remain devotedly committed to evil We need to get them down below 40 in the Senate (which is definitely possible, given that a number of Republican Senators are retiring). Also, impeachment is utterly irrelevant now, it would take longer than The Drunk has left. The Nixon impeachment hearings took many months, and he's only got 5 until the election. Keeping McCain (aka Shrub II) out of office is a much higher priority now.

You are welcome to vote for some 3rd party candidate with no hope of winning, but I fail to see what use that will be for anyone.
[User Picture]
From:aureantes
Date:June 11th, 2008 09:49 am (UTC)

Re: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

(Link)
Just 'cause Pelosi (whom I can't stand) and Conyers have issues doesn't mean that the whole party is useless, much less that they all deserve smearing with the same brush. Every legislative politician is subject to being condemned for his/her votes, and some do pay far more attention to wooing potential conservative swing voters than to retaining the confidence of their own natural constituents, a trend which I abhor (particularly since the GOP does no such pandering but relies on blunt party loyalty and propaganda). But if you can name me another political party with a chance of winning this round of elections and turning the country around, please do so -- otherwise I have to say, you seem more intent on making others lose according to your ideals than on anything you actually do want having a chance to win out -- which I sincerely hope it does this time snd finally.
[User Picture]
From:alobar
Date:June 11th, 2008 10:01 am (UTC)

Re: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

(Link)
When "winning" don't mean shit, why keep electing the bastards?

Kuccinich has introduced impeachment. The rest of the Congressional idiots are not behind him.

Dem leadership is just as much an imperialist war party as the Repubs.
[User Picture]
From:aureantes
Date:June 11th, 2008 10:18 am (UTC)

Re: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

(Link)
If impeachment is introduced, it'll rally the brainwashed masses who think that Bush is actually a nice guy (because he's been pulling that personable act in place of leadership skills for most of his life, ya know). At the moment, politically speaking, people already are generally (and bipartisanly) getting pissed off enough at Bush's ineptitude and damage done that they want him and his ilk out of governmental control. But it just may not work so well to get him out by terms of impeachment, because of the reaction that it would cause before the elections. The expense and time of the process would be seen as governmental waste by a lot of ignorant people who don't understand the concept (or the Constitution) in the first place; they'd think that the evil godless liberals were just beating up on Bush (I just got sent a chain-brainwash letter on that today, actually, with Jay Leno calling Bush-bashers spoiled ungrateful brats), and they'd be voting Republican out of solidarity regardless of their interests -- just like they've been doing for the past twenty-some years. Whatever her other panderings and cowardices, I think that at this time Pelosi has a good point in not wanting impeachment proceedings to be started. And I've been for impeachment of the whole crew all along, but this close to elections it could undo a lot of good that has been done in breaking down partisan lines among the voters themselves.

And....along with not having a veto-proof majority in Congress, I don't think we have an impeachment-safe one either. But I'd have to look up the rules on that one.

[User Picture]
From:aureantes
Date:June 11th, 2008 09:38 am (UTC)
(Link)
I've been saying ever since the 2000 "election" that the first thing to do in changing the federal government is breaking the Republican stranglehold, and then we can all diversify into multi-party and coalition visions of government. In order to break the GOP holding the legislature and/or executive branch, Democrats are needed......after that, all the Greens and other more-progressive-than-thous will actually have a place at the table, because they won't have a party in power (voting or veto) that regularly dismisses and demonizes them just for being what they are and stops forward initiatives from being started. Knock the elephant off Capitol Hill, and the rest of the animals might be able to work together for the general good. I certainly prefer that to a repeat of previous elections with third-party draw that only benefits the bloc-voting Republicans and social conservatives.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:June 11th, 2008 09:48 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well said indeed!
[User Picture]
From:mindstalk
Date:June 11th, 2008 03:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I wouldn't get your hopes up on that front; our voting system is naturally two-party, and the natural constituency of the GOP probably dwarfs the likely growth of any third party, unless the Republicans fall apart like the Whigs before 1860. Which has happened... once.

Some sort of visionary about-face, like new evangelicals leading the GOP to environmentalism, might be more likely; after all the Democrats did an about-face on racial issues without being nominally replaced.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:June 11th, 2008 06:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Prior to the late 1970s, the evangelical Christians had been a fairly minor force in politics (for at least the previous 20 years), and prior to Nixon's development of the Southern Strategy in the late 1960s, the Republican Party was not the party of bigots, so neither of these are remotely set in stone. If the current structure of the Republican party can be shaken up, the nuttiest of both will go off to form another useless 3rd party and the party will drift to the center. The Republican party of the early 1970s was very different from the current Republican party, and I'm hoping that a sufficiently bad defeat will reshape it into some new and less horrible form.
[User Picture]
From:aureantes
Date:June 12th, 2008 07:59 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, what I have seen so far is that, despite the overwhelming two-partyness of national politics, Democrats within my lifespan do have a greater willingness to communicate and work both "across the aisle" and outside the nominal party system than Republicans do. Republicans tend to be more cohesive and less questioning -- they just don't go outside their box to the same extent as "liberals" do, and they place more of an overt emphasis on party affiliation and loyalty.

So, actually I do think there's enough of a difference there to move slightly towards multi-party/coalition government, because the Democratic side has more of a recent history of listening to and looking at and dealing directly with different points of view, instead of just dismissing differences on ideological or moral-law grounds.
[User Picture]
From:merovingian
Date:June 11th, 2008 01:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
As someone who generally votes third-party in elections, I fully intend to vote a hefty Democratic ticket this coming election, for exactly the reasons you describe.

I've been sending contribution money to the Democrats, too.

(I'm considering sending some to the Libertarian party, to help disarm McCain, but Bob Barr is so objectionable I haven't been able to muster the will to do it yet.)
[User Picture]
From:sythyry
Date:June 11th, 2008 02:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*grin* Makes sense t'me.
[User Picture]
From:slothman
Date:June 11th, 2008 07:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
For people holding their nose and voting for Democrats just to keep the Republicans out of office, I commend your attention to reform movements like Change Congress, Public Campaign, the Center for Voting and Democracy, and the Sunlight Foundation. I’m not pleased with the Democrats’ performance, but more of them are willing to listen to requests for changing the system than Republicans are. It will be important to be particularly loud in our demands for reform before the lobbyists can get to them.
[User Picture]
From:kitten_goddess
Date:June 11th, 2008 09:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Good essay! One minor point, though.

The Republicans do not have a monopoly on dangerously paranoid wingnuts. A few of the louder mouths in the environmentalist movement, with their doomwanking about how everyone will starve to death within ten years unless we abandon modern technology, certainly qualify as being dangerously paraonid.

I call them dangerously paranoid not because anyone outside their little camp would be converted, but because they a) discourage people by making them think that saving the planet is hopeless b) give ammo to Big Business with their outlandish assumptions.

I don't think these ecofatalists are on the right wing at all.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:June 11th, 2008 11:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The Republicans do not have a monopoly on dangerously paranoid wingnuts.

Very true, but the difference is that the environmentalist wingnuts are so far out on the fringe that they have essentially no political power, while the Republicans have been effectively running the US for the last 30 years. A significant shift to the left still won't give the econuts much power.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com