There are many things that bother me about present-day conservatism and liberalism alike.
On the right side of the aisle, I’m most put off my the anti-science wing of the conservative movement. These are the people that chastise the liberals for ignoring reality in favor of Political Correctness, but who then turn around and dismiss a hundred and fifty years of reliable evidence in evolutionary biology as “just a theory”. I’m all in favor of believing as you choose, but when you use the legislative hammer to smash the ankles of scientific progress because your favorite holy text contradicts the findings of science, you are just as guilty as the Political Correctness warriors of ignoring reality in favor of wishes and whims.
On the left side of the aisle, however, some things bother me even more: the virulent anti-industrialism and anti-achievement strains running through liberal philosophy these days.
Capitalism is greed. Profit is greed, and a four-letter word all by itself. Employers are exploiters. There is such a thing as a “fair” price, and a buyer has the right to force the sellers to charge that price. Any sort of environmental impact is bad by default if humans have a hand in it at all. (Humans building dams=bad. beavers building dams=natural and good. Humans killing animals for meat=bad. Animals killing animals for meat=good.) There is no form of human-generated energy that is good. Nuclear power is unsafe, coal power is dirty, solar power needs icky batteries, hydroelectric power requires dams and kills amphibians, wind power kills birds and bats, wood fires kill trees. Sitting in the dark and shivering while eating plant matter is the only acceptable way for humans to interact with their environment, and for the extreme fringe of environmentalism, not even that is acceptable–we’re a cancer of the planet that just needs to die off.
There’s no such thing as “better”–everyone is exactly alike, and at the same time unique and special. Excellence is arrogance, and insisting on standards is “elitism”. Wealth is a pie of fixed size, and everyone’s slice should be the same size, regardless of ability or effort. Feelings are just as valid as evidence, and perception is reality. Doing things by yourself and for yourself is wrong and selfish. Doing things with others and for others is right and selfless. The desires of the many outweigh the rights of the few.
It’s entirely possible to find a conservative who isn’t anti-science, or a liberal who isn’t anti-progress and anti-achievement. However, fringe positions within a party or movement have a tendency of becoming mainstream opinion sooner or later. Those of us who value both science and individualism have a foot in both camps, and therefore stand in neither. Every election then turns into a sort of nose-holding game, where we are faced with the choice of sacrificing one of our guiding principles for another, purely on the speculation of which candidate is just a little less dangerous to those principles at that moment. If I want the candidate who recognizes my right to self-defense and a larger portion of my own paycheck, I have to tolerate his flag-waving authoritarianism and his religious favoritism. If I want the candidate who will keep his hands out of my sock drawer and his holy book out of my public school, I have to contend with his opinion that someone else has a claim to my paycheck as well, and that I can’t be trusted with the means to defend myself.
In those scenarios, there simply is no “lesser of two evils”. I am not willing to throw the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments under the bus to save the Second, nor sacrifice the Second to save the First. I cannot in good conscience give my vote to anyone who doesn’t respect the entire Bill of Rights, which means that I’ll probably never see my preferred candidate win, and I’ll always have to field accusations from the losing side that my little third-party vote was instrumental in “handing the election to the other guy.”
The game is rigged, and I’m tired of playing it. I’m tired of pulling the lever like a conditioned rat, choosing the option that promises the bigger piece of kibble this time. Those of you who aren’t, feel free to keep pulling, but do not for a second claim the right to chastise me for not buying into the scam anymore. I’ll vote third party. I won’t get what I want, but I won’t get that if I vote for your guy, either, and this way I’ll at least be able to mark that ballot without holding my nose. Best of all, when your guy starts fucking up just as badly as his predecessor, he won’t have my consent.
45 Comments
August 27, 2008 at 10:07 am
But… but… if you don’t vote for our lizard, the wrong lizard might get in!
August 27, 2008 at 10:24 am
Voting in a POTUS from the opposite party that controls congress contributes to gridlock. At least less bad is done in that scenario than when one party controls both branches.
Yes I have to hold my nose when I vote (don’t we all), but I see no merit in throwing a vote away. I’m a realist.
Just a thought.
August 27, 2008 at 10:27 am
The only time you throw away your vote is when you don’t vote your convictions.
August 27, 2008 at 10:31 am
I’m with you Marko, I can’t stand either McCain or Obama. Now if only I could find a decent third party candidate….
August 27, 2008 at 11:03 am
To quote somebody, “Cthulhu 2008 – Why vote for a lesser evil?”
There is also an aspect of personal responsibility and accountability involved…should I vote for the lesser of the two evils, then I am at least in part responsible and accountable for their actions in office. When my choices have been narrowed by others to being between a Marxist and a Democrat-lite, I am not willing to accept the responsibility of voting either of them into office.
August 27, 2008 at 11:11 am
This has been weighing increasingly on my mind. Neither candidate has any intention of limiting their behaviour to the powers laid out in the Constitution. Neither candidate sees The Bill of Rights as anything but a piffling inconvenience.
Whilst the current incumbent has taken a slash-and-burn approach to the limits of presidential power, a bit of history study shows that the Power Bloat has been going on a long, long time. Having a two party system really seems to help with that.
Be nice if there was a Constitutional Party, or something. Also, I would like a pony.
August 27, 2008 at 11:22 am
There is. The problem with them is their desire to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations.”
Here’s the preamble of their platform statement:
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
August 27, 2008 at 11:34 am
Yeah, I know. That’s exactly the sort of thing that causes me to qwerty my forehead.
I’m peeved at them for calling themselves the Constitution Party, because they’re not. There’s that little thing in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
So “Hypocritical bungholes” is one possible definition of the so-called Constitution Party. Damn them.
August 27, 2008 at 11:40 am
Well spoken, sir. Both candidates are hemorrhoids on the bung of society.
Part of the problem is that our two-party system has become one party, with minor distinctions. We need a viable third party candidate.
What we need is the US version of the UK’s Monster Raving Loony party.
August 27, 2008 at 12:05 pm
For at least the past 10 years, I’ve described my political philosophy thusly:
“I hate the Republicans and the Democrats. I just hate the Republicans a little less…”
This year has come closer than any other to forcing me to remove that second sentence…
August 27, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The only time you throw away your vote is when you don’t vote your convictions.
I disagree with the premise, but I believe I am voting my convictions. If I vote for a 3rd party candidate that has 0% chance of getting elected, I help BHO get elected who will (with the help of a socialist congress) 100% abuse his powers. My opinion is that McCain will not abuse his power to that extent and, further, won’t be able to do so given the opposition in congress. You obviously don’t share this opinion. Fine.
However, my “idealistically pure” vote for a 3rd party has a net harmful effect on the country. Some years, the effect would be less harmful, but there are huge Supreme Court implications for this election.
Realistically, I can’t vote for someone who agrees with me 90% but has a 0% chance of winning just so I feel better.
August 27, 2008 at 12:33 pm
This would be why I’ve voted third party in every election I’ve been eligible to vote in since I turned 18. How do you manage to write out what’s in my head?
August 27, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Marko, did something happen to you or did someone do something to you at one time that causes you to have such a disdain for religion? … particularly for creationists? I understand your arguments for not stopping the progression of science but your scorn almost seems personal at times.
I have to smile and chuckle at times when I hear you label anyone who disagrees with evolutionary theory as being anti-science. You should research the personal beliefs and writings of the founders of modern science and mathematics. It might surprise you how many were literal six-day creationists. It might further surprise you how many used that belief as a basis for their studies and discoveries. A bigger eye-opener might be the number of literal six-day creationists currently working in various fields of science. They include department heads at universities, project directors for corporations, even a Nobel prize winner or two.
I’m not trying to convert you at all. I just hate being mislabled (anti-science) because I hold to a theory that disagrees with your theory.
August 27, 2008 at 1:08 pm
My choice is easy. I live in a state where the outcome of the presidential vote is pre-ordained, so I am free to vote my mind and not worry about results.
August 27, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I feel the need to clarify a couple things. There’s a (growing?) sentiment that religious conservatives would like nothing more than to implement the Old and New Testaments verbatim as federal law, but the sentiment is incorrect. I can’t speak for everyone else, but for myself and those I know, we’re far more on the “general freedom” side of things – reducing government oversight and allowing people to make their own decisions. The trouble exists because the gov. has control over so many routine aspects of life where religion (or lack thereof) is a vital element. For instance, if education weren’t a gov. affair, there’d be no creation/evolution issue. At least, not as far as the state would be concerned. Want evolution? Go to a secular private school. Want creation? Go to a religious private school. Or homeschool.
Same thing with the faith-based initiatives, etc. Charity isn’t the government’s business. If they keep their hands out of it, there are no sticky questions about favoritism.
August 27, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think the best choice is to forget voting in the primaries; become a card carrying, dollar donating member of a third party (may I suggest Libertarian). This allows “a vote against” when it matters while providing legitimacy to your chosen party (again, may I suggest Libertarian).
If enough people do this, eventually the third party becomes viable (i.e. enough members) or the big 2 take notice of their declining membership and change.
For me, this is as much win-win as I can achieve.
August 27, 2008 at 3:00 pm
From theflatwhite:
Why the hell do you give a shit that his middle name is Hussein? Would you oppose another presidential candidate solely because his first name is Fidel or Raul, or because his last name is Chavez?
August 27, 2008 at 3:01 pm
The candidate I want doesn’t exist. I’ve read the Libertarian party platform, and in my ever so very humble opinion, way too much of it was written by someone every bit as blind to the difference between ideological purity and reality as the Green party or the Constitution party’s writers. In my opinion, all our third parties are fringe because they are IDEOLOGICALLY fringe, not just because not enough people see the idea of a third party as viable. If you could resurrect Barry Goldwater and Harry Truman and fuse them together, then sit them down with some Ayn Rand, you MIGHT get close to a candidate I truly wished to vote for. Maybe.
I skipped voting in the first major election I was eligible to- 2000- on the grounds that they were both irredeemable lizards. I have held my nose and voted since, and plan to this year, because 9/11 convinced me that it really does matter which lizard is in office. I have nothing but respect for the other perspective, though, and suspect that I may come around to it again in my lifetime. We’ll see.
August 27, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Joe,
Would you have preferred that he typed “BO”?
Do you jump down people’s throats when they shorthand FDR or JFK?
Pull up your big-boy pants for chrissake.
August 27, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Wild Deuce
If you are a literal, six-day creationist you might be working in mathematics or engineering. Maybe. But the information from physics, from geology, from cosmology, from genetics and the rest of biology all falls apart. Creationism is a great story, and a great creation myth. It just didn’t happen that way.
August 27, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Hey theFlatWhite, I think you’ve been misled into believing that your vote actually matters at all. Whether you vote for D, R, L, or Jean-Luc Picard of the starship Enterprise makes absolutely zero difference to who gets elected. So tactical arguments fall into a large, gaping category error.
However, if you’re simply voting to register your opinion, then a compromise position seems like a pretty silly way to throw it away.
August 27, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Oana is right on the money. Thanks.
August 27, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Wild Deuce, Oana,
It would be nice to believe you, but my experience says otherwise. I’m sure a minority of ‘religious conservatives’ support those ideas in principle just as a minority of Republicans do. But when politicos get close to power, they seem to get a little shaky on the whole small government thing. Just like the movement liberals all of a sudden discovering that little Federalism idea a couple of years back, only to shove it under the bus once the Democrats retook the House.
August 27, 2008 at 3:56 pm
It’s just that pretty much every single time I see “BHO” used instead of Obama, it’s by someone who likes to point out that his middle name is Hussein, which – of course – doesn’t matter. The “omg obama r teh sekrit mozlem waryer” attitude annoys me greatly, despite the fact that I can’t stand the guy.
August 27, 2008 at 4:01 pm
You know what killed my believing in evolution as a mechanism for speciation (as opposed to adaptation)?
Anthropology classes at university that worked hard to “prove” it from the fossil record. They had very short black lines connected by very long dotted lines. As an engineering student, I could see them straining with all their might to fit their data to their hypothesis.
Now, did some old guy with a flowing white beard wave a wand and poof all the happy critters into being? I don’t know.
But they sure haven’t proved speciation with actual evidence.
As far as I can tell, either theory takes a lot of faith in its first causes.
And WilliamTheCoroner – let’s start some iffing: If God did create everything, and If He’s omnipotent, couldn’t He paint the picture of the world however He wanted to, complete with a geologic record and interesting cosmological data bits? Maybe He had a quirky sense of humor.
Arguing that you can prove either viewpoint seems futile to me. Each one has a first cause that you have to take on faith, or your quest to prove causes never ends.
August 27, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I forgot to mention that a sampling of our potential future is currently available (on a smaller scale) for evaluation. It’s called the State of Illinois. Both houses of the legislature and the governor’s mansion are controlled by the same political party. Does this set-up exist anywhere else? If so, how does that state(s) compare?
August 27, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Uh, yeah. My state (Massafuckingchusetts).
State legislature is 90% Dem.
All Congressmen and both Senators? Dem.
Governor? Dem.
And we’re getting budgets submitted by our illustrious governor that depend on millions of dollars in revenue from casinos that not only haven’t been built, but haven’t even been approved…
August 27, 2008 at 8:26 pm
The game is rigged, and I’m tired of playing it. I’m tired of pulling the lever like a conditioned rat, choosing the option that promises the bigger piece of kibble this time. Those of you who aren’t, feel free to keep pulling, but do not for a second claim the right to chastise me for not buying into the scam anymore. I’ll vote third party. I won’t get what I want, but I won’t get that if I vote for your guy, either, and this way I’ll at least be able to mark that ballot without holding my nose. Best of all, when your guy starts fucking up just as badly as his predecessor, he won’t have my consent.
Sucks here doesn’t it, Marko?
Just blue-skyin’ some thoughts here…
Go the fuck home.
Complain about a place you’ve got some connection to, Candyass.
August 27, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Well, gee, that’s awfully nice of you.
August 27, 2008 at 11:02 pm
He is home. By choice, not by accident of birth. You want connection? Go through the naturalization process. You will learn more about American history and the English language than is taught in most public schools these days.
August 28, 2008 at 2:15 am
I respectfully disagree. While the current electoral choices resemble a South Park episode from 2004 (Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich, http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154582/?searchterm=Douche+and+Turd ), and that the current electoral options for the presidency offer only choices in gradation of vileness, I believe that by choosing to vote for “least bad” is an exercise in fundamental responsibility…hedging the odds as best we can in bad circumstances that in 2012 someone actually worth voting for might turn up.
I’m holding my nose and voting for McCain because he’s ever so slightly less vile, doesn’t ooze from the Daly machine, and seems a good bet to gridlock with Congress and thus self-limit his destructiveness a bit.
An Obama-Pelosi administration offers no such hope, however slight, of any limit on that particular batch of loons.
Emotionally appealing as I find it, on this occasion letting loose with a Cartman-esque “screw you, I’m going home” as my voting choice seems (to me) much too similar to giving up. And that’s what voting an ideal that has no chance of victory breaks out as, to me. I don’t have a candidate I can support, but I do have a candidate that I clearly do not want elected (but that it were the reverse…)
That’s my take on it. YMMV.
August 28, 2008 at 8:23 am
My Baby Sister, who is an elected Republican politician at the state level in an undisclosed location Out West, knocked this down with a very simple statement: The World Is Run By the People Who Show Up.
Carve it in stone.
If you refuse to participate, you don’t get to bitch, because you — by your inaction — have contributed to the default condition which obtains.
Yes, it would be nice if the government and governors would hew to the rules of the game as printed on the inside of the box top. But sitting out and pouting that they’re not playing fair in’t gonna change squat.
M
August 28, 2008 at 8:32 am
I fail to see where exactly I stated that I would sit the election out. I’ll show up and cast my ballot–I’ve worked too hard for the privilege to just Not Show Up.
August 28, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Sitting out or voting for some idealistic nut-job from a party founded last week that won’t be around next year – same difference.
August 28, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Well, golly gee, you got me there, ABO. I guess I’ll be voting for Obama, then. Wouldn’t want to waste my vote, or anything.
Maybe the Republicans will grow some balls with Obama in the Oval Office, and start digging in their heels. We could use some government gridlock. Besides, I really doubt the guy could fuck up any worse than the current tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
August 28, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Worse? You mean like install judges that get exceptionally creative with the constitution? Worse like ban concealed carry and all semi-auto weapons (Ruger 10/22 included)? Worse like national health care? Worse like higher taxes? Worse like “fairness doctrine” governing the airwaves? Worse like mandatory unions? Worse like Chicago? Worse like turning us into Great Britain West?
All it takes is Obama in the oval office with a filibuster-proof congress (very real possibility) and you can have all of the above. But, you’ll fell better because you voted for some fly-by-night party. There’s that.
August 28, 2008 at 1:25 pm
heh, there is that possibility. Some pundit has pointed out that Obama in the White House will be worse than Carter. The experience will usher in a “true” conservative leadership that will do what America needs done.
Do you believe that? Me either.
Marko, I find 99% of your comments to be too accurate to argue with. I’m having trouble with the science comment though. Would you care to shed some light into my dark world of misunderstanding?
August 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Marko;
There’s a point at which repeatedly yelling, “A plague on BOTH your houses!” sounds a lot like, “I’m taking my ball and going home.”
Sorry if I heard that instead of what you really meant.
M
August 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm
All it takes is Obama in the oval office with a filibuster-proof congress (very real possibility) and you can have all of the above. But, you’ll fell better because you voted for some fly-by-night party. There’s that.
If that happens, it won’t be my fault because I voted third party, it’ll be the fault of the “Conservatives” for not convincing enough voters to cast their ballot for them, plain and simple.
The President can’t make legislation and just create all those things with the stroke of a pen. It needs to be passed by the House, confirmed in the Senate, and then sent to the President’s desk for signature. If Team Red gets their asses handed by Team Blue so badly that Team Blue seizes control of all three, then that’ll be solely the fault of Team Red, not mine. It’s not like they haven’t had a chance to show the country what good they can do when *they’re* in control of House, Senate, and Oval Office at the same time.
August 28, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Weetabix,
Well, that’s supposed to be the definition of “science”, right there.
August 28, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Marko,
Oh, please.
I missed being born during the LBJ administration by less than a week. Let’s pretend I was born four days earlier, just for the sake of argument… That would make my life stretch through eight presidential administrations. Of those eight, Bush is fair to middlin’. I can only think of two really dumb things that happened on his watch, although granted one of them was a biggie, but otherwise the man’s a cipher. If it hadn’t been for 9/11, the man would have been a one termer and forgotten, like Ford or his dad.
Personally, I think McCain will largely be a cipher, too, should he win, but I’ll lay $10 down here and now that after four years of Obama, we’ll look back on the good ol’ days of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and the Medicare Mandate and Every Child Left Behind with fondness, remembering how comfy and cool it was in the frying pan.
I was here and alive in the ’70s. I remember. Things can suck a whole lot worse than they do. Me? I’m bracing me for some good ol’-fashioned National Malaise…
August 28, 2008 at 3:40 pm
For me, it’s not the fact that it could be worse. That’s not particularly a special thing, it could always be worse.
The point is that it could be a heckuva lot better. The “lesser of two evils” argument presupposes that there is no good to choose that’s viable. That’s a broken situation which needs to be fixed. At the moment I’m stymied on the “how” bit, but picking the marginally-less-lousy of two lousy choices seems to be maintaining a suboptimal status quo.
August 28, 2008 at 4:03 pm
If that happens, it won’t be my fault because I voted third party, it’ll be the fault of the “Conservatives” for not convincing enough voters to cast their ballot for them, plain and simple.
Shifting blame is great ain’t it. We’re all Americans and we’re all in this together. As a Conservative, I’m trying to do my “convincing” part.
The President can’t make legislation and just create all those things with the stroke of a pen. It needs to be…
). So, I also sure you are aware the President has veto power. GWB hasn’t used it as much as past presidents, and I guaran-darn-tee you Obama won’t have to with a Democratic congress.
Am well aware of the legislative process (I was home schooled
August 28, 2008 at 6:46 pm
MW,
I enjoy your writing and thought processes even though I don’t always agree with the conclusions. So, I’m curious what specifically makes McCain as Conservatively repulsive as Obama is Liberally repulsive?
The the big negative they share is a vote for the Patriot act. McCain also headed the abominable McCain-Feingold bill (which Obama would have likely endorsed as well), but other than that, what about McCain is oh so ultra-religious and ultra-conservative that you would see him so negatively?
If you think McCain is going to force-feed ID to our public schoolers or push for mandatory Sunday school classes or threaten Roe v Wade or come down hard on evolutionists, you’ve got the wrong guy. JSMcC is the most secular candidate put out by the Republicans ever. Sure he’s saying all the “right” things to get the conservative base on board, but he won’t do anything about it and I strongly question his relationship with God. That (for me) is a huge negative in regards to judgement, but for you?
Also, why do you assume he will abuse his power as President to assault the BoR? How? I haven’t seen any indicators that would make me believe he’d be anything more OR less than the status-quo on that. It’s really is hard to say for sure given his lack of an executive track record.
But for sure, he won’t be pushing our economy and medical facilities beyond the point of collapse with higher taxes and nationalized healthcare. He won’t be working in concert with a Democratic Congress to destroy the 2nd Amendment through legislation and socialist judges. He won’t destroy our 1st Amendment by signing that abominable “fairness doctrine” legislation and open ballot for unions. He won’t be pandering to Europe’s every beck and call. He won’t be turning the US into the Greater Chicago Area.
I would have thought that McCain’s negatives – considering your world view and system of beliefs – would be much less for you than for a Christian such as myself.
Anyway. That’s my $0.20 (inflation adjusted).
August 28, 2008 at 9:37 pm
[...] Seriously, go read the whole thing. [...]