Posts Tagged ‘Election ’08’

I’m Voting & I’m Voting Obama

Saturday, November 1st, 2008

I agree that the two major political parties are, more or less, “two sides of the same coin”. I’m aware that the bases of both parties are apt to exaggerate the importance of their preferred issues. I believe that the two-party system is a byproduct of thought reduction and profit potential.

Frankly, I don’t care about any of that.

I consider myself both nihilist and existentialist. I have full knowledge that meaning manifests from within and that meaning from without is forcibly injected and robs an individual of his agency. But at this stage of my life, if I am mentally and physically prepared to create life, I must be equally willing to create meaning.

And the fairest way to create meaning for another is to remove from daily life those forces that seek to strip all of humanity of independence, reason, accountability, and dignity. Even if my action, voting Obama, is ultimately a symbolic gesture, influence is won through argument informed by intelligence and experience. Apathy attracts no one.

These soul-stifling forces represent a pernicious infection that has rotted the already decomposing core of the Republican party. Off the top of my head, there are four:

  • The first force is American exceptionalism. In short, American exceptionalism is the belief that, because American intention is fundamentally good and part of God’s destiny for all, all any action taken on behalf of America is fundamentally good. Incidentally, this sort of exceptionalism is, by and large, not unique to America. This pernicious belief facilitates, perpetuates, and expands economic and battlefield warfare. Though by nature of the position Obama may make the same decisions as McCain, Obama at least acknowledges that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  • The second force is Christian Dominionism. Seeing the world through us-verses-them lenses, Dominionists intend to take over all federal and societal institutions. They received a huge boost from Bush II:  In exchange for access, the fundamentalists who beat the Dominionist drums, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Tony Perkins, convinced their flocks to forgive and forget the atrocities committed in the name of American exceptionalism. Their march will continue unabated during a McCain presidency.
  • The third force is anti-intellectualism. What began as resentment towards the liberal-bourgeoisie and the effete elite inevitably became a lifestyle of anti-intellectualism championed by the populist vein of the McCain platform and the fervid proletarian right. This is evidenced by the absurd promotion of the “Joe the Plumber” stereotype and a vice-presidential candidate who, in all probability, has read neither an essay nor an article pertaining to the First Amendment since high school.
  • The fourth force is the easy production of manufactured and contradictory character assassinations. The blog, The Toot, cleverly summarizes the charges leveled against Obama:  “Obama is a Marxist Muslim Arab Jesus Black White Terrorist Technocrat Racist Do-Gooder Liberal FDR Stalin Hilter Commie Fascist Gay Womanizing Naive Cynical Insider Noob Boring Radical Unaccomplished Elite Slick Gaffe-Prone Pedophile Pedophile-Seducing Liberation Theology Atheist Etc. & Anti-Etc. with a bunch of scary friends from – wait for it! – the Nineteen Hundred And Sixties.” Also, “a chicken shit”. I am under no illusion that an Obama presidency will put an end to as ad hominem fallacy; I believe that, when confronted by an abundance of absurd accusations, future candidates will be able to defend themselves with a reference to the Obama success.

More of the Same

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

I just wanted to say that it seems as if one of my friends is at it again, like so many other people stuck in our current political paradigm.  This was one of their twitters.

I will not be watching the Chicago Machine politician tonight. Although, Halloween is coming, and one has to admire a great costume.

I don’t know where to start.  I imagine this is how IOZ feels about most everything he comes across.  At this point in life, that is to say, outside the 1900s Plunkitt of Tammany Hall days, I would surmise that most every politician is a machine politician.  I’m not sure what my friend thinks they are proving.  The sky is blue?  You don’t say!

Calling what Obama does a costume as well is more of the same.  To think Obama is different, or that any politician is different is absurd.  What does my friend, or anyone for that matter, think they are saving?  Because I’ll be honest, I don’t know.  

Ultimately, I get a kick out of exploiting cognitive dissonance, or the utter lack of wherewithal that most people posses when it comes to politics.  That’s why I comment on it.  It’s like the joy of an adult watching a toddler figure out something – anything.  Why my friend comments on it?  I don’t know, but like Will said before, it seems like he’s just whining at this point.

The Nuttery Beckons

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

Via Right Wing Watch, Janet Folger continues to entertain us with a “newscast from the future“. I found it humorous in a cringe-inducingly vulgar sort of way. Sort of like The Aristocrats only Folger believes her exaggerations. Judge for yourself:

Comment of the Day: Primping Palin Edition

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

deidrap on Politico’s article on the cost of primping Palin:

My goodness! Palin is a one-woman earmark!!

Black on Black Love, pt. 2

Monday, October 20th, 2008

Mondale to Hart: ‘Where’s the Beef?‘”

Obama Has no Capital in Socialism

Monday, October 20th, 2008

Obama has lately been compared to a socialist by John McCain in order to frighten people.  Relatively speaking, on the numbers, this would make Ronald Reagan a socialist as well.  How could I proclaim that so boldly?  Well, the McCain campaign has attacked Obama on the socialist front in a few ways.  One of which is taxes.  On the numbers, Obama’s planned rates would mirror those we had in the 80s. So, was America socialist in the 80s and before?

It’s all a red herring because the word, socialism, contains as many variations as democracy.  Politicians use the word to strike fear because socialism is only one step away from communism in political kindergarten.

Economically speaking, this is where the rubber meets the road.  Essentially, you need to ask yourself what matters most to you: efficiency, or equality?  I merely ask that however anyone responds to that question, that they do so honestly.  That is to say, if efficiency matters to you most, please do not complain about the poor to me.

Bringing up the word “socialist” is for fear purposes only.  As IOZ exclaims from time to time: follow the money.  Large businesses have as much concern in maintaining our current structure as anyone else would.  Honestly, I mean that.  Ask yourself, who controls the capital in capitalism?  Large businesses are not going anywhere.  And as our recent conversation shows, it is in all politicians interests to maintain the status quo of our economy.  That’s why, even George W. Bush himself, has allowed for the injection of capital into the markets from our government.  If John McCain really wants to address socialism, then maybe he should ask himself how he feels about our current handling of the economy.

Undoubtedly we are going to hear about socialistic healthcare.  If that’s your fear, then you should live in fear at all times because every other industrialized nation has socialized healthcare.

I would surmise that it’s all relative.  People don’t want to feel like money is being taken away from them.  That said, I just hope I can all still afford healthcare in ten years time.  The fact that I need to depend on someone else (my employer) to make healthcare affordable is frightening.  Healthcare should be easily purchasable to everyone, but because of the free rider problem, costs won’t go down.  In my opinion, if the ideal is to have people not go bankrupt when they go to the hospital, then we currently have a market failure.  And as I’ve written before, market failure has government intervention written all over it.  But McCain says that’s socialism.

If anyone were to criticize Obama, they should do so on policy grounds.  As Greg Mankiw shows us here, Obama’s plan is messy, and taxes people anyway, even if they buy health insurance on their own.  What I don’t understand is how we can mandate car insurance on people who register their vehicles, but not mandate that people have health insurance.  Sure, nobody has to have to have a car, but by that logic, I don’t have to go to the doctor, or the hospital.  So, why is it that when I get shot or in a car accident, I get taken to a hospital?

Here’s the thing.  What are we afraid of?  And here’s a better question.  Who here honestly thinks that socialism will penetrate and take hold here?  If I know my own country’s jingoistic tendencies, it’s that if something gets labeled socialism pretty well, it’ll reject it.  Let’s see how good McCain is at doing that.

Black on Black Love

Sunday, October 19th, 2008

Bob Beckel on FOX News on the race meme a few minutes ago:

They’ll say it’s not a shocker because he’s an African-American endorsing an African-American.

Indeed.

[I'm] Thinking Like an American, Obviously

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

In view of the truly despicable efforts, by Sarah Palin and others, to discredit Barack Obama by association, I thought that it might be appropriate to repost a relevant post of mine from this past April. I would add that some of the recent personal attacks fall outside the bounds of decency.

Dude, Cass R., they think Ayers wrote his first book. These are the same type of people who used Terri Schiavo and her nuclear family to further their political agenda. Instead of reposting of an article that relates to interpersonal nuance within a community, I think a punch to the face would be more appropriate.

Once Asked, Now Answered

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

John McCain, October 6, 2008:

Who is the real Barack Obama?

John McCain, October 10, 2008:

He’s a decent family man…citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues….[H]e is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.

We’re Not that Smart

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Not many pundits seem to get it about the American Public.  They either suffer from supposing upon the american public opinions that they do not have, or they think the public has intelligence, which we do not possess.

For the first premise of pundits writing that we have opinions, which, in fact, we do not posses – please look no further than one of the many examples Glenn Greenwald cites about pundits.  No doubts, many pundits today will make claim about the American heartland, and real Americans, whoever they are, and what they think about last night’s debate.

Instead of dealing with that though, I want to make sure I deal with the patronization that we receive from major media outlets and others.  

A great example of this is from a post by Andrew Sullivan on last night’s presidential debate.  This is what he says about the public in a few instances of watching the debate.

9.49 pm. Two flashes from McCain so far: “that one,” referring to Obama, and citing Obama’s “secret.” Nasty, uncivil and not even effective.

I debated dozens of times at Oxford. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.

Does anyone who reads this really think that the entire American public sees the intricacies that Andrew does?  I’m not saying Andrew is wrong.  I agree with him.  But Sullivan’s being right or wrong is not the issue.  The point is that McCain’s answers – all of them – are effective.  People who do not compromise the Republican base will still take McCain’s demeanor and answers, and run with them.  Just as they believe what they read in chain emails.

One other part on how we are not that smart.  Tom Brokaw said in the debate last night, “One of you will be president.”  However prophetic and true that statement may be, it was one of the most insulting, ignorant, and irresponsible things to say.  Brokaw himself, someone that should and probably does know better, completely immerses himself in a two party system that exists only because our citizenry unknowingly wills it.

That is to say, even though he’s right, Brokaw is right only in a cynical nature.  If we honestly demand true balance from our network news anchors, then they should not ignore the fact that other candidates and political parties exist in our world, and that we have the option of voting for them.  Who knows, maybe I should thank Tom Brokaw and our media establishment for narrowing my choice down to two already.  Who knew it would be so simple?

But this brings me to another pet peeve of mine.  Can anyone out there give me a response that does not involve the words “two party system” as to why someone should vote for one of these two candidates?  Remember, I use the phrase “should”, not “have to.”  I understand how the various commissions block some third party candidates from the ballots, and while that is a worthy discussion, my inquisition is more philosophical in the sense of getting at the heart of why Americans allow and/or believe in the “two party system.”

William, you want to take this one up for me?  You’re usually good at proving me wrong with cynicism.