Thursday, August 12, 2010

Still Proudly Voting

Dante worries that a zoning issue in lower Manhattan is my sole justification for "excusing" my future vote for Obama.

However, the recent reactionism against both the proposed building and the utter misrepresentation and demonization of an entire religion is a big reason why my vote becomes more important as an "against them" action:

[T]he base of the GOP - aided and abetted by what's left of their elites - want a religious war abroad and at home not on Jihadism, but on Islam itself. And a vote for the GOP is a vote for this agenda. It is a vote for global warfare and domestic division.

This has become about much more than a 3 percentage point increase in top marginal taxes on Americans making over $250,000 a year. The mentality of these crusaders is just the most glaring example of their worldview. It is a worldview that will require far more intrusive and abrasive government than any incremental rearrangement of health care insurance.

If the Libertarians ever wanted to make a serious break from the no-longer-about-conservatism or fiscal responsibility GOP, now is the time to do it.



DADvocate said...

And a vote for the GOP is a vote for this agenda. It is a vote for global warfare and domestic division

And, of course, Obama has done SOOO much to change this!? Gimme a break. His conciliatory policies will lead to more warfare as history has shown in the past. That said, we've wasted time, money and lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. As soon as we leave, both will quickly revert to close to what they were.

Where are us Libertarians going to break to? Certainly not the Democrats who think individual freedom and choice are radical ideas. Our best bet is to infiltrate the Republican Party.

Dante said...

I'm going to shift gears and talk about Ron Paul for a second. Partly because I've had a few beers and I really like Ron Paul. Partly just to make a point about "pragmatism" which was mentioned in the last thread I participated in. I agree with about 50% of what Ron Paul is saying (the other 50% I see as certifiable whacko nutjob garbage), but I believe that 50% where we're in agreement is what he's going to act on. So that agreement is more important than someone like (just since he's here) Newt Gingrich who I agree with like 90% of the time but has a habit of actually acting on that 10% where we differ. And that's pragmatism in a nutshell. I only care about the actions, not the intentions.

Now even where Ron Paul acts, he has to be supported. There's this whole check and balance thing where actions have consequences and by legal extension, people have rights. If Ron Paul really wants to go nutso whacko and try to force his other 50%, at the very least we can keep him from doing anything abjectly Unconstitutional, which is exactly what Mr 90% is trying to do here.

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't fear a politician trying to do something as stupid as what Gingrich is doing because even though it's stupid, it violates a group's right and the pragmatist in me has full faith that our courts will do what needs to be done here to ensure ALL people retain their rights.

Because when it comes down to it, I'm not nearly as interested in ideology as I am with what specifically politicians intend to do and what the specific results will be. (And as an aside, that is exactly why I was prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton has she won the primary.)

So no, I don't really care the Newt is pushing this mosque business. Muslims have rights. They'll be upheld. Maybe I was unfair to Pat for pushing it as a "justification" issue. I just don't really see the ideology of a politician as being something to vote on (to the point that I can't even understand the concept). It's one of those things that would cause a does-not-compute explosion in a circa-1950's science fiction supercomputer.

And for the record, I didn't vote for Kang or Kodoos.

Maitri said...

I care that Newt is pushing this mosque business. For it's just more of this shit:

And as long as you tacitly allow this policy of Trying To Win On Divisiveness And Not Actual Principles to fester in your party, I can't take you or your party seriously.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Regarding the zoning issue in Manhattan, it would not be an issue nationally - and I would not be getting into disagreements with family and friends over it - if national political leaders did not turn it into an issue.

While I can resepct the belief that nothing will actually come of the zoning issue due to US Constitutional protections (even if I disagree with that belief), this behavior has been to specifically misrepresent the situation and confuse the public. Fanning the flames of discord and xenophobia have always - always - led to tragedy in this country. That's their marketing strategy.

In the broader sense, I must take the GOP at their own words and actions. Here they are encouraging and benefiting from anti-Islamic sentiment and xenophobia domestically. People are angry and uncertain, here is an Enemy that lives right here. That is their marketing strategy.

(This is in addition to other enemies who live here: teh ebil socializt Democrats like me who are illegitimately taking over their country behind our non-citizen Manchurian candidate of a President, who tricked his way into office through the votes of illegal immigrants, felons who shouldn't vote, a coalition of Black Nationalist groups, and people like me. Another part of their marketing strategy, but I digress.)

When it comes to foregin policy, they strategized us into a difficult conflict in Afganistan and then doubled down by attacking Iraq. They currently say that to leave, even in the most responsible manner, is to surrender. That's their stated policy.

That means they want to stay, and continue their current strategies, which are unsustainable and which have not worked in a decade. That's their stated policy.

In addition to that, they now want to quadruple down and bomb Iran. North Korea would not be far behind. Which means they want to start wars with at least 4 other nations, when they have been unable to design a winning strategy for war with the two weakest of those nations. That's also their stated policy.

And because none of our allies believe in this type of behavior, we will be doing all this alone. Which is fine with the GOP, which does not trust organizations like NATO or the UN anyway. That's their stated policy.

I consider all of that incredibly destructive, and yes, I will send my vote towards the party advocating disentagling and disengaging us from those things, even if their work to do so is painfully and sometimes inexplicably slow. I can only imagine it is painfully complicated.

As far as Libertarians making their break, I'm not about them "joining" the Democrats, but their attempted infiltration of the GOP has failed at this point.

DADvocate said...

Speaking of global warfare: Secret Assault on Terrorism Widens on Two Continents.

"The attack offered a glimpse of the Obama administration’s shadow war against Al Qaeda and its allies. In roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife — the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists. "

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Another fair point.

That is another problematic policy implementation - and is kinda the same thing that got us into our current situation in the first place. Please see also: Cold War.

But that approach is far preferable to bombing or invading Iran as part of a wider civilizational conflict in which few allies will be willing to participate.

At some point, we have to return to realpolitik, and conclude that we are not acting in our own best interests, and one governing cadre wishes to engage in further acts of irrationality.