ID:49888
 
Rubbish alternative title: "Politics: a revELATION"

Just as a foreword: the following post applies not only to the current US election, but also to all politics now, in the past, and in any possible future (including but not limited to: orwellian dystopias, 60s style tech utopias, 90s style cyberpunk wastelands and post-apocalyptic skynet-based intelligent machine scenarios).

So let's get started. First of all, any of you who have so much as mentioned the name "McCain" or "Obama" have immediately revoked your right to say anything of worth about politics ever again. It's about the party, not the man (or woman, as it almost could've been (and perhaps could still be, assuming McCain manages to buy it before posthumously winning the election. He's done pretty well so far despite being totally braindead, so who knows!)). Shame on you and your family- boo hiss boo.

We have two choices. Conservative right wing tories-on-steroids bastards, also known as the Republicans, and vaguely centrist, liberal saviours of mankind known as the Democrats.

Perhaps I'm being a little biased.
I mean, the republicans aren't so bad. Sure, they think that a female soldier, having been raped by an evil towelhead terrorist should not only be forced to endure the full pregnancy, but also keep shooting anyone who even looks a bit middle easterny- including, I assume, her own unwanted baby.

They may also have been the driving force behind american industry and culture causing not only soul-crushing globalisation but also irreversible ecological damage damning our hypothetical grandchildren to an existence aboard floating rafts, filtering their own bodily waste into McDonalds Happy Meals (oh no wait, that part happens already).

But to disregard the right wing entirely is to be blind to the reality of the situation. The democrat alternative isn't perfect- far from it.
Obama and co. may be the last chance for America to avoid collapsing for eternity into a moral, ethical and ecological abyss, but they aren't anything to be happy (or even reasonably content) about.

I could now decry american politics as a whole for not offering any kind of real alternatives such as a decent socialist party (as is, by the way, present in every civilised country but the U.S., assuming you could regard america as 'civilised'), but that'd be missing the point.

Ultimately individual policies and issues, parties and people don't matter one bit. All the grey area, the complex and varied viewpoints, the broad spectrum of opinion- all of it narrows down to two, well defined perspectives.

Do you, or do you not love?

If you value and love humanity, intelligence and everything good about the world more than you value your own pathetically self-obsessed, fleeting personal standing in the world, then vote left wing.

If you've become so trapped in your culture, your economy, your country- if you've become so selfish and narrow-minded that you can't see the bigger picture of our collective sentience struggling to overcome its demons and become perfect, whole and one with everything, then vote right wing.

It's that simple.
In before SilkWizard tout's the amoral aspects of socialism and defends the philosophy that would let you kill someone if it bettered your own life.
Popisfizzy wrote:
In before SilkWizard tout's the amoral aspects of socialism and defends the philosophy that would let you kill someone if it bettered your own life.

Nonono, you see Ayn Rand says...

Elation wrote
Sure, they think that a female soldier, having been raped by an evil towelhead terrorist should not only be forced to endure the full pregnancy, but also keep shooting anyone who even looks a bit middle easterny- including, I assume, her own unwanted baby.

Um, that would never happen. Everyone knows that conservatives think that all women belong in the kitchen, not the battlefield. So that problem doesn't even exist.
Good post. Especially the last bit.
I think in some ways we ended up really f'ing ourselves up during the cold war. Now, socialism is such a weird spectre/boogeyman that we're unable to even consider that large parts of it work very well (or at least better than some of the systems the U.S. has now).
A lot of people here don't realize just how far-right both our parties are compared to other industrialized countries.

Ah, well.
(Well-worn quote from WChurchill): You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing...
...after they've tried everything else.
TheMonkeyDidIt wrote:
Ah, well.
(Well-worn quote from WChurchill): You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing...
...after they've tried everything else.

Im going to use this in the future heh.


I mean, the republicans aren't so bad. Sure, they think that a female soldier, having been raped by an evil towelhead terrorist should not only be forced to endure the full pregnancy, but also keep shooting anyone who even looks a bit middle easterny- including, I assume, her own unwanted baby.

This made me laugh :P but from where i sit, anything is better then bush, atleast we dont have to follow that idiot into war again...



TheMonkeyDidIt wrote:
Good post. Especially the last bit.
I think in some ways we ended up really f'ing ourselves up during the cold war. Now, socialism is such a weird spectre/boogeyman that we're unable to even consider that large parts of it work very well (or at least better than some of the systems the U.S. has now).
A lot of people here don't realize just how far-right both our parties are compared to other industrialized countries.

The problem is that people will all-too-commonly mix socialism with communism. While there are similarities, it's still a stupid association to make.
post-apocalyptic skynet-based intelligent machine scenarios

I don't think we'll get a vote. Anyone who turns out to vote will probably be shot-on-sight. Bye bye patriots! We wont miss you!
Tiberath wrote:
post-apocalyptic skynet-based intelligent machine scenarios

I don't think we'll get a vote. Anyone who turns out to vote will probably be shot-on-sight. Bye bye patriots! We wont miss you!

If that happens I'll just fly down around Australia and cruse around the desert Mad Max style.
Tiberath wrote:
I don't think we'll get a vote. Anyone who turns out to vote will probably be shot-on-sight.

Nah, Skynet would just throw them in prison camps. For some reason it loves rounding humans up. They say they need them for the work camps but you're telling me that after the first dozen or so T-800's came off the line they couldn't just make more?
'No no, that's a robot designed to perform any task it is given at maximum efficiency that doesn't require food, sleep or any sort of break, they don't have any of the technical expertise required for the job. Come back when you've got a garbage eating, tunnel dwelling, fallout survivor! They'll build a robot you can be proud of!'
all of it narrows down to two, well defined perspectives.

Do you, or do you not love?

The first part is right, the second part is not. Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" is a good book on the subject. That "perfect, whole and one with everything" bit is a textbook example of the "unconstrained" (leftist) view he describes (though I have some hope that you were being sarcastic).

Sowell himself subscribes to the "constrained" (rightist) view, and it's sometimes evident in the way he presents his arguments, but I think the book attempts to be even-handed. I had a liberal girlfriend a few years ago who read it and thought it was good (and it didn't change her mind about anything), so there's a bit of anecdotal evidence for ya.

This excerpt from one of the Amazon reader reviews is relevant to your interests:

"One interesting aspect of Sowell's analysis is that those with one vision will view those with a competing vision very differently and that this is a result of the actual vision itself. For those with the constrained vision, the unconstrained vision is viewed as naïve though perhaps well intentioned. But the view from the other side is quite different. For those with the unconstrained vision, we could achieve a far more just society if it were not for those barriers, both ideological and social, in our way preventing us from doing so. In fact, those with the unconstrained vision are so certain of their ability to achieve certain goals that they do not even ask the more fundamental question of whether such goals are worth achieving in the first place, even if that were possible. Imagine their surprise - and contempt - when they encounter others who not only question the practicability of achieving equality or justice or whatever, but the desire to even do so given the definition that the unconstrained vision brings to the table. Although Friedrich Hayek, an intellectual giant with a very constrained vision, was courteous towards his intellectual adversaries, the courtesy was most certainly not returned. Hayek's opponents trashed him as evil incarnate."
"Politics: a revELATION"

I like your clever wordplay there :P

I stopped reading when you said you vote for the party. The election of 1916 contradicts what you say completely (if you were American, you would know what I mean!).
I could now decry american politics as a whole for not offering any kind of real alternatives such as a decent socialist party (as is, by the way, present in every civilised country but the U.S., assuming you could regard america as 'civilised'), but that'd be missing the point.

Ultimately individual policies and issues, parties and people don't matter one bit.


Policy is the only legacy left by an elected politician. Policy and people are the only things that SHOULD matter.

The underinformed will ignore policy and people... so perhaps you're damning the American populace with your statement.

Take heart though, Elation. If you're basing your opinion of the American voter on a few relatively prolific yet underinformed bloggers on BYOND, remember that most rational people keep their political opinions to themselves. Know that most people attempt to create rational syllogisms and not "truthy" reversals.

All the grey area, the complex and varied viewpoints, the broad spectrum of opinion- all of it narrows down to two, well defined perspectives.

Do you, or do you not love?


No. On a chemical level, love amounts to increased dopamine and reduced seratonin -- signatures similar to the obsessive compulsive. To have the dedication to want to better your country or nefariously use your country to better yourself REQUIRES love.

Don't doubt the existence of a hardest nosed libertarian who wants to better one's country any less than a flatline statist who wants to pilfer from it.
Jeff8500 wrote:
The election of 1916 contradicts what you say completely (if you were American, you would know what I mean!).

Hmm... I'll bite... what about the election in 1916 contradicts Elation?

Bootyboy wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote:
The election of 1916 contradicts what you say completely (if you were American, you would know what I mean!).

Hmm... I'll bite... what about the election in 1916 contradicts Elation?

Taft's policies contradicted some of the Republican party's policies, and some insurgents in the electoral party voted against him.
Jeff8500 wrote:
Bootyboy wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote:
The election of 1916 contradicts what you say completely (if you were American, you would know what I mean!).

Hmm... I'll bite... what about the election in 1916 contradicts Elation?

Taft's policies contradicted some of the Republican party's policies, and some insurgents in the electoral party voted against him.

That's 1912, not 1916.

1912 (Progressive), 1964 (Dixicrat), 1992/6 (Reform, and sort of 1980 (Anderson) are realtively good examples of what I think you're referring to.
Bootyboy wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote:
Bootyboy wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote:
The election of 1916 contradicts what you say completely (if you were American, you would know what I mean!).

Hmm... I'll bite... what about the election in 1916 contradicts Elation?

Taft's policies contradicted some of the Republican party's policies, and some insurgents in the electoral party voted against him.

That's 1912, not 1916.

1912 (Progressive), 1964 (Dixicrat), 1992/6 (Reform, and sort of 1980 (Anderson) are realtively good examples of what I think you're referring to.


Oops, that was a stupid mistake.