George W. Bush is a lying, collectivist, protectonist, big-government statist and I despise him. The only, and I do mean only reason I want him to win the election against the other lying, collectivist, protectonist, even bigger-government statist who I despise is to see the stunned faces of those people on the left when they get their arses kicked. Its an expensive ‘cheap thrill’ but I take ’em where I find ’em.
– overheard at a get-together of Samizdatistas recently
|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the daySeptember 23rd, 2004 |
 59 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
And obviously not an American who would care about what happens and for whom the election is not mere sport.
Sad but true.
The best reasons to vote for reelection are Gun Control, Taxes, and War on Terrorism.
I second The Applicant. Less damage is better than more damage.
And gun control, taxes and the war on terror aren’t a very big deal???
An interesting view on power gun control expressed in “Lottery Democracy(Link)“. Maybe this is the way to start curbing state power
“Lesser of two evils”
Hmm. Is there a valid libertarian reason to vote for GWB on the grounds of his proven incompetence?
He seems far more likely to discredit the whole concept of Big Governement than the other one, which would perhaps be worth another term from a libertarian standpoint.
“Lesser of two evils”
A Reagan or Tatcher appear about once or twice in a century.
Lesser of two evils is what we do most of the time, and not only about political elections.
Quite right. I’m no big fan of GWB but I’m rather looking forward to the reaction when he wins.
I just want to see the reaction of the Europee-ons. Living in France, I’m having to put up with daily ‘Kerry will win, the world will be a better place when he does … ‘ comments.
Four more years of Bush – I can’t wait to see their faces !!!
Pfff… as though Reagan & Thatcher weren’t just the best of two evils either!
War on Drugs anyone? Clause 28?
They were certainly economically liberal on the whole, & in favour of lessened government interference in the economic sphere, but in many other ways both were statist social authoritarians. My best choice of government certainly wouldn’t trade freedom from government interference in economic matters off against ‘moral’ intereference in people’s private lives.
They made big changes which were badly needed, & introduced new modes of thinking to the political mainstream, but were by no means perfect.
sinister indeed.
every now and again i have to smile…. team bush has dug such a whole for the next four years, they’d do better to concede the election now and let kerry look like the ass he is for four years trying to get out of it.
however…i can’t say that i am ready for another four more years of bush just because i want to see how outraged michael moore types can actually get. he’s going to have a damn heart attack, and it’s not like the rest of us can keep up all that outrage for eight years straight….i need a period of cool cynicism! i need four years of kerriocrity!
god save me. english is my second language at the moment. i spoke it once, honestly.
In retrospect I find myself less enchanted with the Thatcher revolution. The unions may have been dethroned, marginal tax rates cut, and the general attitude to business improved, but the state was nonetheless pumped-up.
On A_t’s point: Clause 28 may have become a totemic issue for gay-rights activists, but actually it was just a piece of toothless Daily Mail claptrap. Better examples of the Thatcher administration’s social authoritarianism abound. How about the Video Recordings Act, which brought censorship back for private viewing, and is still used by Trading Standards Departments to bully retailers?
Reagan on the other hand, appears to have been quite cunning in stalling the much stronger socially conservative tide in his own party. For example, he sent Ed Meese off to play in the long grass and get good and mucky, rather than actually doing anything significant to attack the porn industry.
I find it bizarre that someone would be more anxious to “kick the arses” of the left than to do it to the right. Libertarians agree with neither the left nor the right, and I see little reason to prefer either form of statism or have a bias to either.
As for Mr. Bush, he’s done several things I find utterly unforgivable. Claiming the right to detain U.S. citizens for years without trial or access to lawyers merely by calling them “enemy combattants” is beyond the pale. The man should be kicked out of office for that reason alone. The anti-gay marriage amendment he wants is also, on its own, enough to want him gone, as is the fact that he’ll appoint supreme court justices that would vote against abortion rights. Then there is this little matter of making my own life far more dangerous by screwing up the battle with terrorism — I don’t appreciate having my life put at risk. I’m a big believer in punishing politicians for their misdeeds, even if their successors will also commit misdeeds.
In general, the U.S. does far better with a divided government, and given that the congress is currently run by Republicans, it is probably a good idea for that reason alone to replace the president.
Lesser of two evils still needs to be within a context. One way of looking at the difference between Dems and Repubs is that at least the repubs reduce marginal tax rates and reduce regulation a bit. But is a slightly slower crawl toward Statism a lesser evil? If one looks at history and takes note, they see periods of spasm in cultures, political, economic, and cultural, the intensities of which are exacerbated by State interference in individual affairs. It builds up resentments, sets unfair social orders, and corrections eventually take place.
So when we crawl ever forward toward injustice, fast or slow, there will be a day of reckoning. Then the only difference in the pace is how able is the individual able to weather the correction (unless you are lucky enough to push the collapse of the ponzi scheme beyond your lifetime) ? As I’ve said before, if the cycle of increased Statism and its eventual destruction is to occur, I’d rather have it happen more quickly so I’m better able to manage the consequences while relative fit to do so. Slowing the pace only makes certain I will be in my sunset years when the system blows a gasket. Certainly when the gasket blows is not certain, but I’m convinced that it will in my lifetime, and I’d rather have it sooner than later. Bring on the destruction of individualism, useless money, and broken promises. The sooner the better. Then we can reorder the system with enough time to rebuild property holdings.
Is the author of the original piece perhaps one who would like to sing along? Yes? Splendid! … you’re a herman mu-hu-nster…
I think the most important argument for GWB’s re-election are the number of Supreme Court appointments that are very likely to occur in the next four years. Not to mention all of the other Federal court appointments. Given the Left’s strategy of making new law from the bench, freedom-loving citizens of the U.S. need to have our basic laws and the Constitution protected, such as in the case of Propostion 187 here in California, which was overturned by Liberal judges.
Now if we could only rid our universities of the looney left dominance as well.
“Bring on the destruction of individualism, useless money, and broken promises. ”
Individualism? What’s wrong with that?
The Roman Emperors ran their system into the ground with such nifty things as inflated currency, rising taxes, price controls, and their very own, honest-to-God Directive 10-289. When the whole thing came crashing down, it took more than a thousand years to rebuild. Of course in that case, there wasn’t any John Galt gathering, hiding, and protecting the productive people, so there was no right-thinking group to come out of hiding and rebuild. In any event, just because the system crashes doesn’t mean anyone’s going to be left to rebuild the society that should have been.
In short, be careful what you wish for.
In any event, the folks at Washington Monthly have some extremely optimistic predictions of what might come to pass if Bush wins a second term. Not that they would approve, but they’re predicting such things as a return to pre-New Deal jurisprudence on the Supreme Court, massive cuts in entitlement programs, and so on. I’m not as sanguine, but recall that the ideas we suffer under now were pushed for quite a long time before FDR came on board, that TR made some initial steps and helped pave the way, and that sudden, drastic changes have a way of happening every century or so. In the meantime, it’s worth doing what we can to prevent the worst abuses while we await the opportunity to bring about massive changes in our favor.
A_t,
Maybe Reagan and Tatcher weren’t perfect, but they did many good things (as you stated) and were way above the usual crop of political candidates. So in their case it was the less-than-perfect against the evil, not the lesser of two evils.
BTW, when you find a perfect candidate please let me know.
Libertarians have not been able to get their concept from theory to workable political alternative yet. In the U.S. at least liberarian seems to be equivalent to “law of the jungle” in many people’s minds. I’m not saying it is but that meme is a lock in many people’s minds (at least the ones I know who range from flaming liberal to flaming conservative from many parts of the U.S.). Libertarian ideas have made themselves known in the more conservative aspect of political life but as far as swallowing the whole enchilada its does not appear to be happening in several lifetimes. I do agree with Jacob…..we get what we get and have to do the best we can with it…..that’s why we have checks and balances, etc. so they don’t go too seriously out of control. For many liberarians the U.S. system is like watching a slow motion car wreck, but, libertarians have to do a better job of presenting how their system does better. Forgive me if this seems too rambling…no coffee yet.
Perry,
I think that part of the reason so many Libertarians tend to favor right over left, in spite of supporting neither, is that the right tends to agree more in the monetary arena. Social liberties are important, but economics conquer all, I can overcome social restrictions in a statist society if I have the freedom to pursue property. Also, I personally know more libertarians who are converted right-wingers than I do converted left-wingers (perhaps because that is what I am). There is a deep running despite for the left among us former Republicans.
I do agree however with the deadlocked government being a good government. I would love to see more periods in which the internal bickering caused nothing to be done at Capitol Hill. My concern is that Statist legislation would go through anyway, because there is less and less that the Demicans and Republicrats disagree on.
I also follow toolkeins logic, tho I guess I am not as convinced that the collapse will be soon enough. Maybe Im jsut too much of a Dagny Taggart, lol.
For my money tho, Im just excited that a libertarian candidate made it onto the Virginia ballot. Badnarik may not be perfect, but I dont actually have to hold my nose when voting for him, it will be nice to be able to breathe in the voting booth, and hopefully send a message to the two big parties at the same time. Naively optomistic? Maybe, but I grow tired of the “lesser of two evils”, and the idealist in me jsut wont let me vote for the “greater of two evils” either.
limberwulf, dig what you’re saying & I think you’re right about many people, although
“I can overcome social restrictions in a statist society if I have the freedom to pursue property.”
is not strictly true in all cases, & could easily be reversed and still make sense; many can deal with being less well off, so long as they’re free to live as they wish in the personal sphere.
Clearly though, a definite line between the economic & the personal is a near-impossible thing to draw; if I am exercising my personal passion by setting up a business which then fails due to excessive regulation or taxation, my personal life has taken a blow. On the other hand, if I wished to set up a good reliable brothel, or a business growing & selling high grade cannabis, my wealth-creating efforts would currently be stifled from the outset by ‘personal’ restrictions (which would also result in ridiculously good returns from these businesses, provided I could keep them operating in the face of the police).
I have to confess, if I have to choose (which, given the compromises inherent in democracy, happens all too often) I’m more bothered by social restrictions than economic ones; although government waste bothers me, and business is doubtless stifled by regulation, making all of us less prosperous, in terms of my own personal assets I am far more concerned about my freedom to do as I wish in general than I am about my freedom to keep all (or more of) the money I have earned.
No, A_t, limberwulf is correct. If you have “social freedom” but not economic freedom, what that means is that you are housed, fed, and employed at the recognizance of the state. Your neck is utterly in the noose, and any “social freedom” is a matter of permission, not liberty.
By contrast economic freedom lets you gain a serious amount of personal leverage, which can be used to push back social restrictions. That’s the reason why eg: China sits still for democracy protests in Hong Kong, rather than just rolling over them in tanks.
I see your point A_T, it is a difficult thing to seperate the two concepts. I think another part of my attitude comes form the fact that doing what I personally choose does not include brothels, cannabis, porn, gay marriage, abortion, etc. I see the danger in restricting these things certainly, government has absolutely no place meddling in such affairs. I would prefer to see these things succeed or fail based on the free market. I would like to make two points, however.
1) If such social actions were decriminalized, such that a profitable business could be made from said actions, competition would make profitability a lot lower. High grade cannabis, for instance, would not be difficult to find, and there would be no need to charge for the risk invloved, because there would be none. This would make a good cannabis shop or brothel operate on similar margins to any other retail shop. If economic restrictions, taxation, and various regulations were still in place, you would find that you made no more profit than the average bar. Bars are proffitable, but, as there are many of them, most operate on relatively low margins.
2) As evidenced by the actions of many wealthy citizens in this country, drug use, promiscuity, and even vilence can easily be hidden or otherwise “gotten away with” when the proper resources are available. This is why I say that economics are the true power. Not only this, but government, if restricted in its spending ability, would find that enforcement of frivolous laws, as well as damaging socialist entitlement programs would be impossible, no matter what laws happen to be on the books. Money is the basic source of government power, dry that up with economic conservatism, and you will watch the social conservatism laws fall apart due to lack of funding.
i assume each of you have money to lose when w loses so you augur his victory to cling to your wealth.
i am unemployed, student, cognizant, and would like that reflected in my powerful country’s top office.
Andrea,
I was recently unemployed, and have still not recovered from the economic position that put me in. I am employed now, but currently at a lesser salary than before. I think I have a far better chance of continuing my recovery in a situation with less taxation, less inflation causing government spending, and less business restriction.
Furthermore, I for one am not interested in having an unemployed, cognizant student running my country. I would far prefer an educated, experienced person with a history of success. I want a leader, not someone who will make life easier for me. I try to learn from successful people around me, I do not try to team up with fellow unsuccessful people and try to devise ways of stealing the property of the successful. Trust me, it works better to succeed than to steal.
Limberwulf, I’m well aware that cannabis selling etc. are only highly profitable, thus attracting all sorts of unsavoury characters & generating violence due to the exchange of large amounts of money with no reliable credit enforcement, solely because they’re illegal. ‘Tis a perverse effect & no mistake; “we will reward those who sell the things we disapprove of the most with far greater profits than a ‘legitimate’ businessman could dream of”.
I too have no interest in many of the things you mention, yet my hackles rise when I hear talk of restricting them; not entirely sure why, but I find the concept of meddling in someone else’s life because you feel you know what’s good for them better than they do themselves exceedingly sinister. Again though, I can’t really make much of an argument for the economic thing being any different; why is it less sinister for someone to think they better know how to spend my money than I do? (I suppose the answer to that is that they don’t, but feel that I should contribute something back to society for whatever benefits I have reaped, chipping in for the common good… but then again why should the same argument not apply to social mores, however private which are arbitrarily declared ‘destructive’)
Julian, good point, but we’re not talking absolutes here in either sense; in very few places is there absolutely no social freedom or no economic freedom. Mostly you have some balance, & sadly often parties advocating one are in favour of restricting the other. That’s the nasty reality of most Western countries at the moment (presuming you actually have a party which is at least in favour of one of those freedoms that is!).
As to the Hong Kong point, dunno whether the pro-democracy demonstrators aren’t being crushed because they’re useful independent wealth generators or because China’s learnt a few lessons about good PR going a long way towards maintaining good economic relations with the West; no pesky sanctions thank you, which in turn help keep Communist party grandees in mansions, swimming pools etc. Not sure.
I certainly find the fact that wealthy people have always been able to circumvent morality laws no comfort; everyone deserves freedom, not just those who can afford it, and unlike technology, being able to buy it at a hefty price does not necessarily signal that it’s coming to the people any time soon.
Sorry if this is a tad incoherent; good dose of sleep required.
Actually Andrea honey, I keep my money off-shore to protect it from lazy little kleptos like you, so I really do not give a damn which political fat cat wins the race to be boss hog in the pigpen, they will get very little tax for me. And even if Mr Flipflop wins, do you really think he gives a shit about you? Grow up.
It is foolhardy to reject the “lesser of two evils” on the hope that getting the greater evil will accelerate a collapse followed by a libertarian revolution. No revolution at all may occur, or you could get a totalitarian revolution. Look at the USSR. 70 years of Communist disaster and they are sliding back into Tsarism again.
The central planners have made enormous gains in the US by gradually picking away at the right. We should fight them the same way they fight us, by scraping for every small gain we can.
It is also a mistake to assume that a divided government will not grow. It did under Nixon. I think it is very unlikely that government would grow more slowly under a President Kerry than a President Bush.
And why would one assume that the Republicans will hold congress? And even if they do, there are more big-government Republicans than small-government Democrats, so the existing Congress with a President Kerry is likely to favor greater growth in government than we currently experience.
The real problem for Libertarians is that virtually nobody believes in their ideas. Everybody says they want liberty, but they also want government to protect the environment, prevent global warming, end poverty around the world, guarantee a prosperous retirement for all, guarantee state of the art healthcare for all, and end “unfair” trade.
Libertarians have failed to sell their ideas. That is why government continues to grow.
Speaking as a flaming liberal, who can’t seem to grasp the attraction of libertarianism, I would rather have my government spend money on entitlements and health insurance than the military and army. A big army inevitably leads to going abroad looking for monsters to slay. From my imperfect understanding of libertarianism, I would think entitlements would be preferable to military action.
Maria
I love you.
Marry me?
Rich: trouble with that logic is that too many people who *DO* share our views continue to hold the brain-dead notion you espouse of “choosing the lesser evil”. And then they are surprised when the result of their vote is the continuation of evil. No shit Sherlock, you voted for evil and got what you voted for.
la: you do not have to agree with libertarianism, but of you cannot grasp it, you are not thinking very hard. Which bit about not having your money taken by force and spent on things you don’t want is so hard to get your head around?
A big army is just something some libertarians would rather see their money wasted rather than society-rotting things like entitlements (which means theft-by-proxy) and health insurance (which when the state mandates it means filthy hospitals like they have in Britain). But I doubt many see a big military as the prefered option.
Where to start, la? That means “no” in Arabic, btw. You’re using the fallacious argument called a “false dichotomy”. The choice is not between military spending and “helping the poor”. It’s between letting the government steal more money and, therefore get more power, or less money. As Lysander Spooner said years ago, “Every dollar of yours the government gets it will use as a sword against you”.
More “entitlements” btw, produce more reliance on the state to steal peoples’ money and give it to moronic bureaucrats who hand it on to shiftless fools. At least military spending can produce victory over those who kill innocents.
Speaking as a flaming liberal, who can’t seem to grasp the attraction of libertarianism, I would rather have my government spend money on entitlements and health insurance than the military and army. A big army inevitably leads to going abroad looking for monsters to slay. From my imperfect understanding of libertarianism, I would think entitlements would be preferable to military action.
1) Not all (right) libertarians are pro-War/military. See Mises.org and Lew Rockwell. I’m somewhere in between the likes of the run of the mill samizdatista and the Lew Rockwells.
2) Until you realize that those States which make such allocations don’t tend to fund the give aways internally (at least fully), we will have more war. Welfare and Warfare States are connected at the hip. Germany was one of the most ‘progressive’ states and one of the most militaristic. People don’t voluntarily give their resources to others at the level the State requires willingly. Force has to be used. Sometimes internally, and many times externally. The US government is the largest ‘investor’ in the economy (Kerry couches the election as a ‘shareholder meeting’). Is it so surprising that it has a critical interest in preserving access to resources? What is war than a struggle over resources and their use? Am I categorically in favor of the War in Iraq? No. But is it ultimately necessary because oil is the lifeblood of the economy, and hickup in it is felt deeply in corridors of the transfer State and ultimately to a greater magnitude in my pocketbook than otherwise? Yep. I’d rather point the collectivists outward rather than inward if I have to abide them at all.
Individualism? What’s wrong with that?
Ken- I must not have made my point clear enough. I am all for individualism, I just don’t see how an order that champions such can exist without passing through the fire. As I see it, the State is much too large and invasive to broker the necessary change. Am I clamoring for revolution? No, but the system WILL fail, and instabilities will follow. It will only be through force will people restore their liberty. When the State fails to provide most promised entitlements, and they use greater force on those with whatever property is still fully in private hands to carry through on the few they do, and as people lose faith in the system, there will be a violent change in the order. It is beyond this point that a reset will hopefully take place and true liberty restored. So when I say bring on the destruction of individualism it is in the context that it will happen, and better sooner than later (speaking for myself anyway), so the system that is creating it can be killed. It won’t be until enough people are aware of how much their labor is being stolen that they will finally act. And that will only take place when individualism is nakedly attacked and people at least fear individualism’s destruction. Once it has, or very nearly, then perhaps the changes necessary will take place.
I realize that this is mountain-man talk, but the levels of borrowing (at least here in the US) are beyond comprehension. The die has been cast and a whole year’s GDP is now claimable by the State in the name of whoever. And that is as it stands now. I don’t see that there will be a serious decline anytime soon. Sure there is talk, but that’s all it is. But a critical mass will be attained, and there will be bills and claims that need to be paid, and the force that has been abated will have to be used, and people will have to work harder and harder for less and less. A generation will be called upon to make good the sacrifices, and the claim will not be spread over a relatively painless period, but rather it will be quick and sharp. And this generation will rebel. And it will lose faith in the system. And the value that is pure speculation in the figment that is the State will be eroded. The time to defuse the bomb has passed. The last sign post of danger was passed when Bush signed the prescription drug entitlement. There won’t be anymore danger signs. It’s just us and the edge of the cliff now.
Snide,
First, please do not confuse me with “Rich”, who also posts here. He has interesting comments, but they are not mine.
Second, regarding the substance of your post, I will paraphrase your own words:
“No shit Sherlock, you voted for the greater of two evils, and that is what you got.”
of course, if W wins, then in four years Hillary will be the democratic nominee running against an unknown… a lesser evil now with the risk of a greater evil in 4 years
Wrong comparison.
It should be Bush for 4 more years followed by Hillary for 8,
versus
Kerry for 8 more years followed by Hillary for 8.
Or, by Toolkein’s logic (which a part of me, I suppose the mountain-mn part, finds quite compelling), perhaps that would be best. My greatest fear of the system crashing, or at least plummeting, under Hillary is that too many people will associate the failure with “a woman leader” rather than with “a socialist leader”.
La,
When I have trouble understanding something that interests me I do a little research. There are many excellent sites that give clear and easily understood information about libertarianism. One of the best I have seen is called libertarianism.com. Well worth a visit.
Rick: that is a pretty dum reply because those are not the only two choices. Rather than vote for the lesser or greater evil, vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE. Lets try and get voter participation down to single digits, delegitimise them and then just stop doing what we are told.
I took issue with a libertarian resignedly calling for the reelection of Bush. You can read my reason in my post, but they boil down to: Bush sucks in libertarian terms because he’s fiscally irresponsible (cutting taxes should follow with cutting spending), is luke-warm on gun rights, doesn’t have the guts to really face up to the fraud of Social Security, is entirely for protectionism (as long as it protects his interests), and is essentially without principles.
Needless to say, Kerry is even worse.
Though I won’t be voting, it is nevertheless an unwavering source of wonder why I don’t see “libertarians” voting for the libertarian candidate. I examined Badnarik’s positions and felt that he’s mostly on-target and certainly far more than the Other Three Evils. I mean, if you actually think your vote matters (and you should openly question that), then why not vote for the person who best represents your point of view on most matters?
Charles Hueter: that at least makes some real sense. If you are going to legitimise the whole sickening charade, at least vote for the non-evil.
Quote from Kerry via Drudge…… and others.
Kerry Says Allawi’s Speech Contradicts Reality in Iraq…
Digressing slightly from the thread of this post…. it is not a question of voting for the ‘the lesser of two evils’, but for who is the most sane.
The above quote could only have been made by someone who is isanely delusional.
pardon the opaque posting. i meant to say i want a cognizant body in office.
i still love all of you.
have a beautiful.
Snide,
Really! Well, I’ll try not to be so “dum”, but the fact is, there really are only two meaningful choices. Furthermore, there will be only one winner, and it will certainly not be the “Libertarian”.
Rick,
I agree that a libertarian will not win this election. However, as Charles mentioned, for those who still think the vote can matter (I am one of these, call me naive) voting for a candidate that is imperfect but has the proper general principles, such as Badnarik, is the best option.
I say this for three reasons:
1) If you desire representation, you do yourself injustice to vote for someone who’s principles do not even closely match your own. The entire purpose of the vote was so that people could elect representation in government, not so we could pick out of two lousy options. Picking between the current two lousy options is little better than voting for one lousy option.
2) Today’s society is poll-driven. There is good and bad to that. In some sense, a leader should lead, not follow pubic opinion. OTOH, leaders in a republic should listen to what people are saying, especially in a consolidated position such as the presidency, so that the compromises which must be made will at least be made after all sides have been heard. Not voting may send a message, but it is not a specific one. Voting for a candidate that actually represents you, even when that person has no hope of a win, sends a message that there is growing support for minimal government, and the existing big parties had better listen or they will be overrun.
3) If those of us who are educated and aware of the libertarian philosophy, party, political people, etc. will actually vote for them, there will be an even more important message sent. The largest problem with libertarianism is not, I think, an inability of most people to understand it, nor is it people rejecting it. The largest problem is that most people have no idea what it is or that it exists, much less how it all works. A strong showing for a libertarian candidate in the upcoming election gets the party on the map. It makes people ask questions, and it makes the result too large to be ignored by the press as votes for “other parties”. The opportunity to have a large number of people sick of the current political scene waits only for enough of us to speak out in support of an alternative. The end result of this may never be a libertarian president, it may only be a way to get the idea out to many more people, and have more support for the concept in general. That way, if folks like Toolkein are right, maybe more people will be ready to help rebuild.
As for the idea of not voting, I suppose my biggest problem is that not voting could mean too many things. 1) I dont care, 2) I dont like my options, 3) I dont like the voting system, 4) I dont have time, 5) I dont want to think that hard, let others decide for me. That’s just not a specific enough message for me, no matter how low the percentages of voters get.
Also, a new voting system will not be presented by the current class of politicians, or if it is, it will be even more useless to vote in it. The only options are to attempt to vote in a non-typical politician, who represents people’s interest and is willing to share power, or to send it all into the ground, let the whole thing collapse as fast as possible, and try to start over from the chaos. Im game for either one, but if option one has even a remote chance, Im going for that as my preffered option.
Rick:
No shit? Really? 🙂
It is a truism that if people only vote for the Reps or Dems because only one of them can win, then only one of them has a chance of winning. Wow. So if all that does is produce the lesser evil AT BEST, I cannot be a “winner” no matter who I vote for, so there are no “realistic” choices for me among the two “realistic” parties.
Surely arguing that at voting for a non-evil now is the first step in eventually producing a “realistic” choice for non-evil in the future. If not now, then when?
“Kerry Says Allawi’s Speech Contradicts Reality in Iraq…”
The above quote could only have been made by someone who is isanely delusional.
Yes, you’d have to be insanely delusional to believe a politician might pretend things are better than they really are to bolster his own position. Why, that would be a dishonest thing to do, and only a lunatic could believe a politician would be dishonest. Especially in Iraq, which has a long record of reputable and honest leaders.
john b,
Nicely twisted reply, – as one would expect! from a sad, sour cynic, such as yourself. You people just don’t want to see any sort of silver lining, – just in case it may benefit GWB in some way…. try being a little optimistic for a change, you never know, that bile may go away…
john b,
If you were any sort of decent human being, you should be hoping that Allawi’s speech had a basis of truth, if only as a sign that things may just be getting just a little better in Iraq.
So what does that make you? a person who wishes a bad situation will get worse, just to gain some political brownie points for your favourite lying politician in the US. at least he is only delusional, you are pathetic…
Yes Bush is the lesser of two evils and the reasons listed above are good reasons for voting for him. Kerry is turning out to be Dukakis Mark II. His campaign style is: elect me…its my turn! I too can’t wait to see the left go ape when Bush is returned in early November. Kerry has not learned the basic rule of national American politics: Americans want to vote for something, not against something.
Of course why bother for the lesser evil when you can vote for the greater of all evils. Ia! Ia!
As Lazarus Long put it – when in doubt vote against.
I dunno ian, I prefer to look before I leap. Frying pans are no place to be, but blind leaps tend to land you in the fire.
Actualy, there is a good reason to vote for one of the big two in certain areas.
I live in Minnesota, which might go either way. So I can either vote for the cadidate that supports some of my views and hope he wins, or increase the odds of the candidate who I have nothing in common with win.
However, if you’re in a place like Texas, vote for your preferred candidate, as that is definatly Bush Country.
Hillary Clinton elected president would be the worst of all evil. Been down that nasty road once, I won’t be Clinton-fooled twice.
Funny thing is, Clinton with a Republican congress gave the US one of the most fiscally conservative periods in half a century.
I rate Kerry far, far below Hillary on my list of people to lead us. If the Democrats actually wanted a contest rather than a mutual whack off party, they’d have gone for either Leiberman or Clinton. The Machiavellian side of me says the leaders knew they couldn’t beat Bush this time around so they sent out the fatted calf this time around and held their best in reserve for an almost certain victory in 2008.
I think we are looking at a massive meltdown of the left come November. Maybe some sanity will return on that side after they finish their Vietnamese Buddhist Monk impression.
Dale that ain’t Machiavellian its realistic. I mean Edwards would be making Rove & Co sweat right now. Lieberman could have beaten Bush, I rather doubt Hilary could though. I think she will rally the Republican base like no other in a very long time if she gets the nod.