A friend recently accused me of not being conservative.
Me? Not conservative? WTF? I'm in favor of small government and fiscal accountability and such.
He was unswayed. To prove his point, he asked me, "Which do you prefer, people taking responsibility for themselves or handouts to poor people?"
And I was all like, "Why can't I be in favor of both?" He assured me I couldn't be.
When I lived in Birmingham, Alabama and attended a Christian university, people called me a liberal. When I worked for a game company in Seattle, Washington, people called me conservative.
You know what I call it when extremes label you the opposition? The elusive "moderate" position. But moderation doesn't eschew either end of a spectrum. It consists of both. I mean, duh.
But this current executive branch is neither conservative nor liberal. It is authoritarian.
John W. Dean expounds in a useful article in the Boston Globe saying things I wish were said louder and sooner:
Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in "conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.
I'm not ready to go with him on Reagan's disbelief in relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. His eco-sins are carefully listed in a commentary at grist.org.
But the rest of the article has some useful points for the plaintive American moderate.
9 comments:
Sometimes you can't vote for the most qualified person, cuz he isn't running. Sometimes you have to vote for the lessor of two evils. Wanna fight about it? :)
OH JAN YOU DID NOT JUST WALK UP TO ONE OF MY FAVORITE SOAPBOXES AND ASK FOR A SPEECH.
I don't want to fight... I want to lecture! See next post for complete text!
Believe me, I have learned my lesson. I will not make the same mistake again.
Just be careful - I have soapboxes (and a blog) as well.
BTW, I'm flattered that I inspired such an impassioned blog entry. :) No politics tomorrow night, 'kay?
Yeah, but you never write on your blog anymore, so no big threat.
No politics tomorrow. Politics are boring.
I'm surprised I mustered enough giveadamn to write two entire posts about it.
Okay, so now you got me thinking about it more.
1. Yes, I can vote for whoever I want. But voting for Joe Schmoe feels an awful lot like completely wasting my time. I could stay home and play Spider Solitaire instead of standing in line to vote for someone that will never win in a million years. OR I could try to keep the worse bad guy from winning the election. In which case, I vote for the lesser of two evils.
2. Your perfect democracy does indeed sound WONderful. But that ain't reality, dear. So our democracy isn't perfect. What's the answer? Did the gov't break it? No. People CHOSE not to devote very much time to figure out who the best candidate was. They have the right to vote and they have the right not to give a flip. It would be great if everyone devoted time to researching the candidates. But they don't. And there's no DEMOCRATIC way to get them to do so. So we live with what we have.
So what do you do? I think the best answer would be simply to educate people. Educate them about gov't in general and about the candidates and about the issues. But some people just don't want to learn. And you ain't gonna make'em.
Yeah, like I got this far and don't have rebuttals to 1. "Don't waste your vote." and 2. "You can't change people."
Luckily, I am done writing about politics for a while, and you are spared the public embarrassment of me dismantling your cute little "arguments." >:)
P.S. But seriously, what do think my rant is, but an attempt to educate?
You're so lucky that I read that last comment Sunday morning, rather than Friday. The half a bottle of wine might have produced very different results.
Talk about comments being combative. Sheesh.
:)
Post a Comment