What's Wrong With Republicans?

So I think I’ve figured it out. I think I know why the Republican platform has become so distasteful to me.

It seems as though the party has made the conscious decision to play on the worst parts of the American consciousness.

Think about the things that you associate with “conservatism”. Defense, Border Patrol and Immigration, the "Moral Majority," and a Non-Interventionist Economic Policy.

Now let’s really look at what’s appealing about each of those positions.

Defense: plays on our fears.

They scare us in to believing that, even though our Military is larger than the militaries of all of the industrialized countries of the world combined, we need to increase spending because we are constantly under threat. And what’s worse, I think at this point it should be clear to everyone with an IQ over 50 that it’s the very fact that our military presence is so great that fosters the animosity in the world that is threatening us.

You know those guys who are always out looking for a fight? Well, they always seem to find them. I prefer to be nice to people, and as a result, have never been in a fight in my life. What the Republican position on defense breaks down to for me is a nation wide policy of buying a bigger gun to make up for a tiny penis. It’s a lack of courage or maybe self-esteem made up for by a bigger stick. So they appeal to all the people who are constantly fearful by promising them that they don’t need courage or true personal strength, because we have the biggest stick.

Border Patrol and Immigration: plays on xenophobia and racism.

Let’s be honest: there’s absolutely no evidence that foreign nationals are taking our jobs. In fact, in another article that I plan to write, the exact opposite is true: nationalizing foreign workers is creating jobs in the most important fields – industrial innovation and R&D. Every time I hear a Republican talking about Border Patrol or Immigration what I hear is “gotta keep those damned darkies out of our country!” But there is no basis for their dislike of foreigners, except that they are foreign, and the weak minded tend to fear what is foreign.

Now, I’m not against a reasonable immigration policy. I do believe that we should be selective in who we allow to become citizens here – in my opinion we have enough idiots running around already without taking the rejects from other countries too - but being smart about who we nationalize is different from trying to build a fence along our border, closing our eyes and covering our ears to the world and yelling LA-LA-LA-LA at the top of our lungs until everyone goes away.

The Moral Majority: appeals to the worst in everyone as far as I can tell.

I don’t even know where to start with this one. Let’s take Gay Marriage. The claim is that sanctioning Gay Marriage will devalue Straight Marriage. Huh? How? How does anything that someone else says or does affect your marriage at all? Do you think that because two men down the street get married that all of a sudden your wife won’t love you any more? Or that the institution of marriage will become meaningless just because it’s available to everyone? Like “Honey, I still love you more than ever, and I want to be with you for the rest of my life, but those two homos got married and now we have to get divorced.”

I should say that I don’t understand it, but I do. It’s homophobia – nothing more. I accept that homophobia is the new racism, and I can see that for the racists and homophobes of the world, legitimizing something like marriage threatens you because it grants an acceptability to the people that you irrationally hate.

Fine. You’re a douche bag. Just admit it. Stop trying to dress it as something that it isn’t, and please please please stop pretending that you are taking the “moral” high ground. You aren’t. You’re being a racist and a homophobe. I bet that the people who pushed for the mysogenation laws of the 1930s (in which Blacks and Whites weren’t allowed to marry) toed the same line as the Gay Marriage folks. Are you comfortable with that? Would you also be comfortable passing a constitutional amendment in which people of different races, or religions, weren’t allowed to marry? If not, why not? What’s the difference?

Non-Interventionist Economic Policy: plays to our greed.

This is a sticky issue, because greed is always going to drive economic policy in one way or another. But look at what happens when we allow corporations free reign without any oversight: lead in toys, rotten, diseased food, Enron and corporate scandal, mortgage crises, Blackwater and Haliburton with no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars.

I can accept the fact that I’m not an economist, and that I can’t prove that giving tax breaks to corporations doesn’t create more jobs (though the evidence seems to back me up). For the sake of argument, if you wish, we can assume that the best way to get money in to the hands of poor people is by giving it to rich people. But look at what happens when you don’t impose strict regulation on business. Look at what happens when the almighty dollar becomes the only goal. Companies cut every corner, put out toxic and dangerous products, are caught, consumer confidence drops, people stop buying, and the economy tanks. What’s the end result? The Almighty Dollar suffers.

But all that aside, the Republican Policy on Economics always sounds too much like a 4 year old with a new toy. “You can’t have that, it’s MINE!” I get it, you worked for your money. Guess what? Someone helped you along the way. Be it a professor, or a boss, or a friend, or your parent’s trust fund. Some people don’t have those weapons in their arsenal yet, and so we, as a society, determine that what is good for all of us is good for each of us. We want to have fewer poor people, because fewer poor people means more people making things, more people selling things, and more money for everyone. Hiding your money in an ivory tower and going swimming Scrooge McDuck style doesn’t accomplish that. Admit it, you want to vote Republican because you’re greedy. What I believe, but can’t prove, is that you’re an idiot as well, as all your greed is actually holding you back.

So Republicans, know this. Starting now I am not going to hide it any more. I’m going to tell you what I hear when you talk about your policies. I hear “I’m weak, and therefore I’m afraid all the time…I’m a racist and a xenophobe and I don’t want any more darkies in my country….I’m a douche bag homophobe and I’m so ashamed of my beliefs that I’ve become the modern day equivalent of a high priest in the Spanish Inquisition imposing my morality on others to justify my own existence…and on top of it all, I’m a greedy bastard.

There's Something I Just Don't Understand

Someone’s got to explain Dick Cheney to me.

And Karl Rove.

Well, this whole administration, I guess.

I mean, President Clinton got a blowjob and I had to sit through six months of impeachment hearings.

President Bush sends at least 4,000 American boys and girls to die in the desert based on a lie, and not peep one about impeachment (well, at least not until the advent of www.wexlerwantshearings.com , but that only popped up in the last few months.)

On top of that, the economy has been destroyed; veterans hospitals aren’t taking care of the sick; homes are being foreclosed all over this great nation; and our national debt – if coined and printed, bundled up, and launched in to space – would be the 4^th largest planet in our solar system.

I guess I have to admit the possibility that I’m just young and naïve and every generation has a president who they find to be utterly incompetent. But this smells of a different flower, methinks.

Am I wrong? Is this the kind of utter disregard for the will of the nation that we are to expect from an administration? Or is the level of destruction wrought by Bush and his cronies something extraordinary?

So, assuming that this administration does, in fact, represent something beyond the norm, I have to wonder: how have they gotten away with this?

How have they convinced the nation to sit idly by as they condemned our children to irrevocable debt and a world that hates them? How have our country’s parents allowed themselves to stand stoically as our soldiers were sent to die in a war that has no justification? How have they convinced the voices of good reason to stay silent as our homes were taken, our jobs were lost, and our economy spiraled down to a point where realistic people don’t foresee us ever rebounding?

Does Dick Cheney have some sort of power that we are unaware of?

Does he have naked pictures of every congressperson with 8 year old Filipino boys?

I mean, that’s about the only scenario that makes sense to me: that somehow Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration has such powerful, career crushing evidence against every possible voice of dissention that to speak out against them would be tantamount to suicide.

So what is it going to take? Do we just need (gasp) 60 senators who put the good of the nation above their own careers?

Or is it worse than I imagine? Are the interests that dictate the actions of the office of the president (oil, Halliburton, Northrop Grumman, Satan himself I think) the same as the interests that dictate the actions of the House and the Senate? Are the families who run the most powerful lobbies in Washington SO powerful that no one is immune to them?

In an episode of The Unit last year, a line of dialogue indicated that there were “about 14 families that run this country”. At the time of viewing it, of course, I dismissed it as a silly bit in a TV show. But I’m starting to wonder if there isn’t some truth to that. I mean, somebody’s interests have to be being served by the idiocy that we have endured these past eight years. The CEO of Halliburton certainly hasn’t been missing his mortgage payments, for instance.

So is that what we’re seeing? Have the interests of these “14 families” finally become so disparate from the interests of the nation that they cannot be hidden any more? During the cold war I could imagine the people not noticing (or caring) that the false war against the Soviets actually existed to feed the pockets and power base of the Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us so strongly against in his farewell speech in 1961.

But this new war is a different kind of war. Planes and Tanks and Submarines aren’t as necessary any more. So that money still needs to be spent, but it needs to be spent in different areas. I don’t doubt for a minute that it isn’t ending up in the same pockets – it’s just that it gets filtered through different companies on its way there than it used to.

So Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld foresee these developments in the late 80s when they first tried to get the US in to war with Iraq. And when Bush the Second becomes president he hires on Rumsfeld under the oh-so-laudable goal of privatizing the military (yikes). The point, Rumsfeld argues to Congress, is that privatizing the military leads to competition which will drive down prices, and save the country money during war time. Then war starts (odd) and Halliburton, Blackwater, and a number of other companies are awarded multi-billion dollar contracts on a NO BID BASIS. How, Mr. Rumsfeld, is competition supposed to drive prices down when you DON’T ALLOW ANYONE TO COMPETE FOR THE FUCKING CONTRACTS? Instead, we have a war that will end up costing this country upwards of 4 Trillion Dollars. To compare, the whole Vietnam War cost the US just over $133 billion dollars. This war is costing us TWICE that, PER MONTH.

So someone explain this to me.

Explain where this money is going. Explain how there are no checks anymore on the power of the President. Explain how our constitution is being spit upon and no one is saying boo. Explain how our liberties are being one by one dismantled by a single man, and we are allowing it to happen.

Explain it, because it just doesn’t make sense.

If You Don't Vote for Barack Obama You're an Idiot

It’s time to come out and say it:

If you don’t plan on voting for Barack Obama this November, you’re an idiot.

What’s your excuse?

He’s too inexperienced? Prove that. In the 4 years he’s been in office he’s passed through more legislation that most of his colleagues, garnered bi-partisan support, and has picked all the right fights.

His inexperience also (and this is not based on any facts I can provide – just intuition) means that he hasn’t accrued the long list of debts that more “experienced” candidates bring to the office. My feeling is that Washington works on the basis of favors. Special Interest Group A provides support / votes / money for Elected Official B at some point, and in return, Elected Official B enters in to a tacit agreement to provide support for that Special Interest Group at a later date. It’s not that Elected Official B necessarily gets put in the pocket of Special Interest Group A, but I would assume that to not return the favor would get you labeled as a “favor not returner” (elegant, huh?) and in the future could mean that Special Interest Groups C, D, and E wont be as willing to provide that Official with support / votes / money.

So I don’t worry about experience. I understand that it’s a concern, but given the choice between the wrong man and a man with limited (but not limiting) experience? I’ll take the latter all day.

More important than his actual experience is the approach that he takes to dealing with the issues. One of my favorite professors in college once said “You can always tell an argument from a discussion because in a discussion you are trying to learn from the other person, while in an argument you are trying to teach them something.” I carry that quote in my head at all times now, and use it to change my tone any time I find myself trying to teach someone something in an argument. Sure, sometimes the other person continues along that track, but there isn’t much I can do about that. However, when I switch from teacher to student, you’d be amazed how much better the conversation goes.

So it was with that in mind that I read this article, written by a self-proclaimed avid conservative, and (like so many of the articles about Obama) it almost brought tears of hope to my eyes. The gist of it says “Sen. Obama believed something, but knew that many people disagreed. So he called me because I’m one of those who believes the opposite of the Senator, and asked me to explain everything about my position.” Now, that SHOULD be commonplace amongst politicians. They represent a huge number of people, all of whom have slightly to drastically different opinions on issues. It would just make sense that their leader would want to know what all those positions were. It should be common, but do you really feel that it is?

In the 2004 election, the term “Flip-Flopper” became a common talking point to degrade the Kerry campaign. At the time I thought, “So? He thought something, he was wrong, he learned better, he changed his opinion…what’s so wrong with that?” It certainly beats the alternative: “I believe this, I don’t care what you say, I believe it, I don’t want to hear any evidence against it, shut up, fuck you.” If you want a leader who won’t listen to advice, well, you’ve got that. How’s that working out for you?

Then there’s the argument that he’s too good of an orator.

Really? That’s a concern? He’s TOO good at the primary skill of a politician?

Ok, there’s the chance that he’s all rhetoric, no substance. But I think we can already clearly see that that isn’t true. There’s nothing concerning to me that a man who eloquently states his position. I guess I just don’t understand how that’s a bad thing. If a man can say something in such a way that you believe him, there’s two possibilities: One, he’s really good at oratory and you got duped or Two: he’s right about it, and you finally see the light. Every speech I’ve heard Barack Obama give was an example of the latter. Add to that the point I made earlier (that he’s a man genuinely interesting in having the right positions, even when they differ from his established positions) I am confident that when he speaks, and speaks eloquently, that he’s more than just words.

I guess there is some concern about his ethnicity. His middle name is Hussein after all. Just stop right there. If you are actually worried about that you’re a racist and a xenophobe, and therefore an idiot. Kill yourself.

Most recently, we’ve had this debacle involving his Pastor and his commentary on race relations in this country. This isn’t breaking news or anything, but here’s The Daily Show’s quick recap of the events:

Everyone should do themselves the favor of watching the full speech, but it is thirty seven minutes long so grab some popcorn and a Dr. Pepper first.

However, if after having viewed it you don’t believe that this is the right man to be president, you’re an idiot.

Imagine: an honest discussion of race in this country. Black men and women still remember the shame and cruelty of the 1960s and earlier. White men and women harbor resentment about having to “pay” for injustices of earlier generations. Let’s not sugar coat it; let’s not judge the feelings; let’s just accept them as facts. Now what? Well, we’ll see. But to open it up honestly is something that we’ve never seen before from a major politician…and most certainly not one before his job was secured.

So here’s what I propose:

Let’s stop hiding.

Let’s stop pretending that we don’t look down on the idiots of this nation who hold irrational opinions. Let’s stop giving credence to racists and homophobes. Let’s make the wrong opinion the unpopular one, for once. Lets make “Conservative” the dirty word. I’m so tired of “Liberal” being slopped about as an insult. What? It’s wrong to want to make things better? It’s wrong to accept that change is part of life? No. No more. People who doggedly hold on to old, malfunctioning beliefs should be the ones who we ridicule. You should be ashamed to be a conservative. You should be ashamed to vote for what does best for your own, selfish pocketbook. You should be ashamed to think that you have the authority to dictate morality to others. You should be ashamed of your fear mongering. You should be ashamed to be a Republican.

To that end, I propose a new direction for the intelligent, liberal voters of the world.

A T-Shirt

http://www.zazzle.com/republican_quiz_shirt-235167695595331340

First Thoughts on the Election

It's finally happened. I care about politics.

Well, sorta.

I'm still not going to be volunteering for anyone's campaign, I'm not going to give any money, I'm not going to throw myself behind anyone as the savior of all humanity, but I am going to vote, which is a big step forward for me.

See, for years I was terribly disillusioned with the whole process. At 29 years old it takes a particular kind of temperament to be disillusioned with anything, but clearly I am of that temperament.

My rationale for not voting was based around the belief that it's nearly impossible to know who you are voting for. As low an opinion as I have of self-proclaimed "red staters", I have to believe that if they knew in 1999 what they know now about the policies of George W. Bush, not even they would have elected him to lead. (I'm a little more confused about 2003, but that's a topic for another post)

The problem is, there's no way of knowing what kind of a President a Candidate will make during the campaign. A Candidate, by necessity, must pretend to be something he/she is not while trying to win our votes. They have to lie to us. They have to tell us what we want to hear. They have to pretend that our issues are the most important issues in the world, and they have to promise us that, if elected, they will make the sagging cotton economy in southwestern Ohio (or whatever) is the number one issue that they will address.

It's bullshit, but it's necessary bullshit.

Unfortunately, we as a species lack true empathy. Our decisions are dictated by our experiences, and our experiences are, by definition, ours - they are specific to each individual. As such, a candidate running on a platform of, let's say, universal health care, must make universal health care important to each and every one of his or her constituents. The problem is, universal health care doesn't mean anything to me. Philosophically, I'm behind it, but I get health care through my employer. So why should I give a shit if some random dude who I'll never meet gets taken care of?

I know, I know, there are all sorts of arguments for why I should give a shit, but since my mother will never read this I can comfortably admit that I still don't. Go ahead, preach the "human right" aspect. Go ahead with the "it saves us all money" pitch. I don't care. Well, I kinda don't care...more to the point, I don't care at the moment because I'm trying to make a larger point.

Now that is not to say that universal health care isn't a very important issue for some, or even many, of a certain candidate's constituents, it is just to say that it isn't an issue for me. So to speak to me, the candidate will have to find another issue. For what it's worth, my hot button issue is the economy. I need a candidate to promise me that under their leadership Americas economy will be strong. Fancy new TVs will be cheap, innovative new products will be falling out of the sky, and I will be able to make a better than decent living so I can afford all the ridiculous crap that I, at one point, promised myself would never be important to me.

So how does a candidate get my vote? If he or she comes to me preaching universal health care I'm going to go back to playing my PSP. So instead they come to me promising me the world in terms of economic growth. Problem is, I - like a jilted lover - know that they were just down the street whispering sweet nothings in some old woman's ear about how her prescriptions will be cheaper come November.

Well, which candidate is the real one? There's only one thing they can do first, and they have now promised both me and Betty down the street that our agenda will be it. Truth is, probably neither one was true.

So I never voted. I always believed that I couldn't vote - that it would be irresponsible for me to vote - because I genuinely had no idea who I was voting for. Any candidate that I voted for would be some sham, some pretty mock up designed to appeal to the voter in me. The Candidate could have little or nothing to do with the actual President I was helping to put in to power.

And then we got President Bush.

I mean...Jesus.

Quick: name 5 good things he's done in eight years. Eight Fucking Years. Eight years, and nothing to show for it. No Child Left Behind? Huge failure by any standard. Prescription Drug Reform? Written by the Pharmaceutical Companies? Nope - failure. War on Terror! Yeah! That's gotta be the one! Oh...wait...Al Qaeda is actually STRONGER now than it was before?

All it seems this man has done is to significantly expand the powers of the office of the President, while not using those powers to accomplish anything for the country. If I weren't secretly hiding an optimist underneath this angry, angry pessimistic shell I might accuse President Bush of pursuing power for power's sake. As is, I'll just fall back on the old "incompetence" excuse. However, that's not much of a choice when it comes to the Legacy Department. "Hey George, would you like my to title your biography The Most Incompetent President Ever, or How Evil People Use Power to Create More Power For Themselves?"

So anyway, I vote now. Well, I voted in the mid-term elections and I plan on voting in the Presidential election come November.

Sure, I still have some issues. I do live in Minnesota, which means that my particular vote plus two cents will be worth about two cents.

You remember that South Park episode where they forced the kids to choose a new mascot, and the choices were a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, and Kyle wouldn't do it so they exiled him? Vote or Die, Motherfucker...Vote or I will Motherfucking Kill You. In the end, he decided he'd come back to participate, and he cast his vote for Turd Sandwich, and they counted the votes and Giant Douche won 1410 to 36?

Well it's hard not to feel that way - particularly in a Representative Democracy where so long as one more person in any given district votes for one candidate over the other, all their representatives go accordingly - meaning anyone else who voted beyond that one was just wasting a perfectly good Tuesday afternoon.

However, at the very least by voting I can pull a Homer from the Citizen Kang sketch in Treehouse of Horrors VII. You remember, the one where aliens Kang and Kodos take over the bodies of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole and use the election to take over earth?

Anyway, Kang wins and dystopia ensues. As the episode ends, we see the Simpson family slaving away carrying massive stones for their new alien overlords, and Homer says "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".

(If you're wondering, by the way, the answer is "yes" - a fair bit of my political, ethical, and personal philosophy will be drawn using examples from prime-time cartoons. )

Luckily, this time around I don't believe that we have a George Bush in the running. Sure Obama's experience is questionable, and I have my doubts about Sen. Clinton's ability to work on both sides of the aisle to actually get anything accomplished, and Sen. McCain is starting to worry me with all this talk of "10,000 years in Iraq" - well, and besides, he's a Republican which has become pretty synonymous with "evil" in my mind. But even with their downsides, I don't think any of them could manage to fuck up the country as badly as it has been for the past two terms.

So I'll cast my vote, and hope for the best. If not, at the very least I'll be able to say "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."