Apparently I have an unpopular opinion
I went into the Presidential Debate full of anxiety. Mitt Romney has been trailing (thank God) and apparently trapped in a death spiral of his own making. The word for weeks has been that the debates are his last chance to turn the momentum. He had everything riding on this debate and would for sure be prepared as humanly possible
( Read more... )
You can slam Romney for many things, including being a massive flip-flopper, but you seem to be arguing that the guy willing to toss a few crusts to the majority of Americans while having his nose firmly ensconced in the same place Romney's is such a *major* difference just bespeaks a huge cognitive bias. At least Romney isn't gonna hide who's really pulling his strings.
A vote for Obama is a vote to feel good about oneself, and little more. But that's okay because Obama has already got this one in the bag. Anyways, I can't believe you're arguing for the two party dichotomy and the status quo. A vote for a third party isn't throwing your vote away. It's a protest against the system and voting for one's conscience, and there's little to lose in most states in doing so. Most of them are sewn up for one candidate or another in the electoral college, yet the popular vote can determine matching funds and media attention.
As for rightward drift, I see nothing but the same old crap. It's the left's version of Rush and his cronies screaming about the growing socialism in America. Both of them are bogeymen designed to distract people from the fact their rights are being eroded and the wealthy rigging the game from both sides of the aisle in a true bipartisan fashion. You want real change? Upend the system.
Reply
I vote to make myself feel better? Really? Everyone's vote is slightly narcissistic or else we wouldn't bother. I had heard that very line trotted out against supporters of third parties, that their useless "protest vote" did nothing to actually help anyone because it completely ignored the real options at hand, it's simply a way of making the voter feel "superior" to the vast majority of the population. It's bullshit, Paul, everyone is voting their conscience in their own way. I vote the way I do because I vote for the less bad option, of the options I believe are available. Since we both know either Obama or Romney will win this election, not Johnson or Stein, you are voting for one of them (which, by the way?), knowing they will lose, but with the aim of playing a long-term game that sees those options gain legitimacy later on. I do agree with attempts to reform the system, but I am not convinced that particular attempt will ever manifest itself in a way I feel warrants the risk of getting the worse of the two options available now. That's because of past experience.
Matching funds was literally the only argument for Nader that I was willing to give any credence back in 2000, I didn't buy then (as I don't buy now) the notion that the Democrat running had it in the bag and that he wasn't any better than his Republican opponent anyway. But ultimately I did vote for Gore. I'm surprised at your surprise at me. I was 18 years old in 2000, I lived in Orlando and was really hyped up to be getting to vote for the first time ever. I was surrounded by people voting their hopes and not their fears in college. Bush won our state by 537 votes, or about .7% of Nader's share. Yes, there were many other factors going on there, but it's really a shock that would have an effect on a person? I may have personally encountered enough Nader voters to have swung the election in Gore's favor. It haunts me to remember how chirpy and assured those people were that Gore would win anyway, that he was the lesser of two evils, and so on.
I don't care about Obama's hobnobbing. Romney got in trouble not for the crime of being among rich people, but for what he said and planned to DO in front of those rich people. Being wealthy isn't a sign of morality either way in my book, but some rich people seem to think differently. They think they owe NOTHING to privileges and luck, that their wealth is a sign of their moral superiority, and likewise the poverty of other people is a sign of their immorality. People who think like that think the poor aren't suffering enough if they have refrigerators and shouldn't be "entitled" to food. Obama argues that everyone benefits from the system and people who are unlucky need to be protected and helped too. Some rich folk agree and are willing to be taxed more. That's fine with me. I don't hate the wealthy, I only hate the arrogance and spite bred by the "we did build that" crowd.
I don't have any desire to defend the drug war that infuriates me, or the erosion of civil liberties, or the wars abroad. Yes, they trouble me. What can I do? I can help the guy who will keep doing them, help the guy who will also do them as much if not more, or indirectly help that second guy by sort-of helping someone who promises to do differently but really can't, not in the short term. And I'm not convinced they can do anything in the long term either. Most of those things I hate are not opposed by broad majorities of Americans. People don't think the drug war is working, yet they don't favor legalization or decimalization. They overwhelmingly support the drone strikes in Pakistan. On social issues my side is lucky to break a plurality. I fear that when it comes to America collectively, we may INDEED be getting the government we deserve, embodied by Romney or Obama. I don't know that I could change that mindset at the voting booth.
Reply
Leave a comment