« Is this thing on? | Main | Sail on, oh mighty ship of State »
imagine there's no countries, it isnt hard to do
by mg at 06:43 AM on November 02, 2004
Believe it or not, I am one of those “undecided” voters. Yes, I certainly skew toward George W. (That rhymes)
But… I’m just feeling a little uneasy.
The history of human society has largely been a conflict of cultures and ideologies. Different ethos war and it is through that struggle that many of humanities greatest advances (as well as its greatest shames) occur. Invariably, one of the ideologies win and swallows the other whole, but not before, and this is the insidious thing about history, being changed by the consummation.
We are now at a point in time when there are only two significant ideologies in existence: western democracy and the kind of totalitarian theocracy prevalent in much of the Middle East. This “war” between the two has been inevitable for 1500 years. Say what you want about U.S. foreign policy and fanatical religious fundamentalism, but when there are only two prevailing ideologies left in the world they are destined to collide eventually. Maybe the war had to come because these two cultures can not exist in the presence of the other. It would be nice to think there is such a world where they could exist together, but history gives us no other model that such a thing could actually happen.
Now, democracy has won out everywhere in the world because it is the best option amongst all the choices. Personally, I wouldn’t mind socialism, but it just isn’t practical. Maybe someday it might work. Maybe someday someone will invent a new form of government. Like the Borg. Or… who in the hell can imagine what might come next? But democracy is the best we’ve got now, and people understand that, even if, like in the former Soviet Union, it takes them a bit longer to do so.
Knowing democracy is the best option we’ve got, I don’t doubt for one second that it would win out over totalitarianism and theocracy. But it might take a hundred years. A hundred, bloody, painful years and destructive years.
The neo-cons currently in power believe it is America’s right and duty to change the course of history in the world. I think this is really cool. After the 9/11 attacks they’d decided to take that as the opening salvo of the inevitable war, and decided to face that attack rather than ignore it (as had been done for more than a decade before). I think this is pretty cool too. Then they attacked Iraq. I didn’t quite get that, but I can sort of see what they were trying to go for.
That would be the big reason I’d vote for Bush. On the other side, there is Kerry.
Besides for his service in Viet Nam, not being a “fortunate son,” his ability to marry up, and his staggering neck strength (to hold up that giant head), I couldn’t tell you many things I like about Kerry. I don’t agree with most of his policies, but like many Americans considering Kerry, I’d have to say his most attractive quality is that he isn’t George W. Bush.
Not that I don’t dislike George W., but I am a firm believer that a government is at its best when it does very little. This “war on terror”, despite what the liberals might tell you about John Kerry, will progress along pretty much as it has even if he wins. But, with Kerry in the White House the executive and legislative branches of the government will be split. Bush and the republican House and the republican Senate have gone a little crazy over the past four years and it makes me uneasy.
I’m not necessarily a republican, but a conservative. The last four years of legislation have been anything but conservative, and that is because there were no checks and balances in the government. That makes me uncomfortable, especially if Bush’s second term would involve appointing any Supreme Court Justices. I can’t go out and vote for senators in seven other states, so if I want that balance Kerry as president would be the only way to do it.
I’ll be walking over to my polling station in a little while. And I’m still not sure whose lever I’m going to push.
comments (16)
You're "undecided" eh? We all know what that REALLY means.
by Eviltom at November 2, 2004 6:55 AM
BTW- anyone who's still "undecided" at this point should really be a Kerry guy.
by Eviltom at November 2, 2004 6:55 AM
You're one to talk - voting for George W. will be the closest you'll be to getting bush in your lifetime.
(Ah - political discourse on Bad Samaritan. So enlightening.)
by mg at November 2, 2004 7:10 AM
When in doubt, vote for the guy who doesn't have intentions of legislating religion and prejudice.
by Linz at November 2, 2004 9:08 AM
EvilTom, it's been awhile... You should read my blog(the financial blog), Well, Here's a funny thing, Lockheed is a registered Republican but he's going to vote for Kerry. That's how dumb George W is. Now, if only there's a way to keep the Bush twin daughters around for another 4 years... (and coming).... oooooooooooohhhh....
by LOCKHEED at November 2, 2004 9:40 AM
I live in New York, so my vote, one way or the other, doesn't matter. Actually, the funny thing is that amongst the regular commentors here, none of our votes matter. Except for the Missourians, we all live in states that are decidely for one candidate or another. Stupid electoral college.
by mg at November 2, 2004 10:07 AM
I just pulled the lever for Kerry this morning.
by Ezy at November 2, 2004 11:10 AM
I attempt a few hours sleep now, I will pull the lever for Kerry around 600pm... right down the street in the old Senior Citizens Center... Hargrave House... I like to call it... "OurGrave House..." Yes, MG you're right, but you don't want the wrath of P.Diddy on you...
by LOCKHEED at November 2, 2004 12:36 PM
i voted for bush. kerry just didn't convince me he was a better choice. not that it matters, with me being in california and all.
by JC at November 2, 2004 3:30 PM
Missouri has voted for the winning candidate in every election since 1900, with the exception of one. Right now Missouri is leaning towards Bush. Of course, it’ll be too close to call and the layers will end up deciding the election this year.
by MrBlank at November 2, 2004 3:51 PM
the layers? do you mean the people sleeping with the supreme court justices?
by JC at November 2, 2004 5:18 PM
Goddamn. This comment thread could be a poster child for dumping the stupid electoral college. My wife is rabidly anti-Bush, saying he's the antiChrist and all. I'd have cancelled her out by voting if I though it'd make any difference. (Ezy I think this might link my name to the site.)
by anna at November 2, 2004 7:51 PM
I would suggest that your charactorization of world politics is a little simplistic and over stated, but overall, it looks like you've thought thangs thru pretty well.
In my view, the Republican Party has been hi-jacked by Libertarians and Religious Conservatives in some sort of unholy alliance (yes, I know this is simplistic and over stated too lol). It does make me uneasy to have these guys unchecked and in control. Personally, I'm not a moderate, but I'm a centralist (sometimes I jest by using the term "extreme centralist" lol). I feel the government is mostly likely to stay out of my business when there's a balance of power between the competing forces. We do not have that balance right now. We need to find it. Hopefully today will be a step in the right direction.
by fcsuper at November 2, 2004 8:19 PM
http://www.thefirsttwins.com/messages.html fucking hilarious comments
by LOCKHEED at November 3, 2004 5:36 AM
Well, I am a simple man. But, I'm not sure how you can deny that throughout all of recorded history we've seen the struggle between prevailing cultures. First it was tribes warring against each other. Then nations. Recently, philosphies (capitalism vs communism). Up until even 50 years ago we saw many different cultures and ideologies simultaneously existent. But WWII really changed that. Now we have the U.N., NAFTA, the E.U. - all working toward, and I think France would hate to hear me say it, homogenizing the world. The U.S., because of it's economic and social prominence in the world is in large part to "blame" for this. But, seriously, it was inevitable that the world would become one big uni-culture. Haven't you ever seen Star Trek?
But, I do agree with you about balance of power (as described above). I really hope what Bush and Kerry have said in their respective speeches today about uniting is true. I'd love to see Bush bring in some Dems to replace any exiting cabinet members (Powel seems to have one foot out the door). Take heart in this bit of info I heard on NPR - there is evidence, historically, that a president in his second term is much more of a centrist.
by mg at November 3, 2004 7:32 PM
Yeah but the scary part is now Bush has nothing to lose. Let's see what happens.
by anna at November 3, 2004 9:39 PM