The less intelligent of two evils

One of the major tactical blunders conservatives have made is focusing on individual politicians rather than on ideas. This seems to have started with Clinton (maybe because by then the Cold War was over and that had defined much of their platform?). When Clinton took office, the primary criticisms we heard from conservatives related to his personal life; his eating habits, his marital pitfalls, etc. Very, very little discussion of his actual policies. The conservatism "opposition" to Clinton was more like a roast than a movement.

That's the problem. When you make the opposition all about individual politicians, what happens when that politician leaves? The foundation of your movement is suddenly gone. It is like the difference between spending and investing. While conservatives have been spending political capital focusing on the short term quirks of individual politicians, Democrats have been investing in the long term by making their opposition mostly about ideas that transcend individual politicians (climate change, "affordable healthcare,").

Yes, when Bush II was in office, there was plenty of focus on his accent, his speech pattern, his wild youth. But there was also constant discussion of his tax policies, social policies, and towards the end, his warmongering. Contrast that with the conservative obsession with Obama's birth certificate and alleged allegiance to Islam. Even the bashing of Obamacare largely came down to the idea-free slogan: "Obama's a socialist!"

The conservative focus on individual politicians isn't isolated to individual Democrats. They make their own campaigns about individual Republicans. Every campaign speech from a conservative mentions "Reagan Republicanism." No discussion of anything Reagan did; just a constant repetition of his name. Again, this is totally ineffective. An 18-year-old potential Republican voter doesn't care about Reagan. He could be made to care about a Reagan-related conservative idea...if one were actually presented to him.

In order to win a War of Ideas, you have to have some actual ideas. The closest thing Republicans have had to an idea is the War on Terror. And as voters have tired of it, all Republicans have done is double down (especially in '08).

Once more: climate change is a spreadable idea. Obsessing about Al Gore's personal carbon footprint isn't.

I always vote for "apathy"

“If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.”

--Emma Goldman

I don't vote. I also avoid conversations about voting, because when I mention I don't vote, otherwise reasonable people respond by shrieking like a freebasing hyena.

Man travels in packs; even supposed !INDIVIDUALISTS! feel better when they can be part of the mob. Voting helps sate this craving, and trying to argue the herd out of herding is like giving the finger to gravity. Doesn't accomplish much.

Still, the sanctimony of proud voters during Presidential races is so feverish I can't help myself.

The least impressive argument I hear from voters: People died to give you the right to vote.

So what? People also died defending the Third Reich. Their dying for a cause doesn't alter the merits of the cause one bit. Dying isn't a big deal. People die running themselves over with their own riding lawnmowers. Their death doesn't elevate my view of them.

Look at how progressives react when a Christian tells them Jesus died for us. The progressives laugh, gag, or squawk (not a bad name for a game show). What they don't do is start going to church. Progressives--or just non-Christians in general--don't feel any obligation to Christ based on his dying for a cause.

I remember once speaking to someone--a proud progressive, AND SHE VOTES!--who couldn't leave well enough alone. She kept serving big, clichéd bowls of "It's your civic duty to vote" chowder.

Finally I said something like, "I don't believe in the political system, so by not participating, I am being the change I want to see in the world."

If anyone should appreciate my mentality, it should be progressives. Or so their slogans--Think globally, act locally--would lead us to believe. I don’t believe in voting, so by not voting, I am being the change I want to see in the world. I am thinking globally and acting locally. I am following Ghandi's advice.

George Carlin said it best:

I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.

Romney isn't Reagan; He's Dewey

Romney, like all Republican hacks, says the word "Reagan" almost as often as he says "the." Mitt uses "Reagan" likes it's a comma. In reality, Mr. Romney has much more in common with a certain Thomas E. Dewey of DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN fame.

Both had been presidential bridesmaids before. Dewey made an unsuccessful run for President in '44 (and in '40). Romney made an unsuccessful run in '08.

Both men ran on the heels of a Republican surge in Congress. Both surges were described by those doing the surging as "a mandate." In Dewey's day, the '46 elections were said to be a mandate on the New Deal. In Romney's time, the '10 elections were supposedly a mandate on programs like Obamacare (how uncomfortable for Mr. Romneycare).

Both faced a beleaguered incumbent. At one point in '48, Truman sported an approval rating of 36%.

Both were liberal (by Republican standards) governors of famously liberal states (Dewey New York, Mitt Massachusetts); making them suspicious to Republicans elsewhere in the country. Perhaps this is part of the reason their opponents focused their campaigns on the desperate need to "nominate a real conservative;" making the races a bit of an "anyone but Romney/Dewey affair." In 1948 Dewey's opponents even convened to construct a delegate strategy to stem "the Dewey blitz." They failed.

Both were accused of insufficiently differentiating themselves from the incumbent; basically offering a series of overly cautious "me-tooisms." This approach made it easier for Truman to seem like a tough talker, and will likely afford Obama the same opportunity. Don't be surprised if before long we're hearing, "Give 'em Hell, Barry!"

The big difference is that Dewey was very much expected to win. No one expects Mitt to steamroll Barack. So Romney can reference Reagan all he wants. The rest of us know how this movie ends. The headline this November will be OBAMA DEFEATS ROMNEY.

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF YOUR LIFETIME (since the last one)!

If you live long enough, you get to see firsthand just how stupid people really are.

In the 2004 presidential election, the mantra was "anyone but Bush." Sure we're in trouble, but if we can just get John Kerry in there, maybe there is still time to save the country! Get to the polls: this is the most important election of your lifetime!

Now in 2012 the mantra among Republicans is "anyone but Obama." Sure we're in trouble, but if we can just get Mitt Romney in there, maybe there is still time to save the country! Get to the polls: this is the most important election of your lifetime!

Wow, two "most important elections of my lifetime" in just eight years. I guess no one expected me to live very long.

There is no such thing as a "most important election of a lifetime," because each election is exactly the same. Presidential elections alter nothing.

In 2008, the Obama Apostles ran to the polls seeking change! Instead of change, these adorable do-gooders have been treated to a delightful continuation of Bush's foreign policies (and aggressive interventionism certainly didn't start with Bush; the US has been an international occupying force since McKinley) and domestic brutality.

And those who claim Bush was a free market alternative to Obama seem to have missed his bailout of the banks and and the car companies.

Now if you're a young voter, say 20 or younger, you can't really be expected to appreciate the histrionics of 2004 or the fact that they are being repeated verbatim today. You have an excuse. This is the first MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF YOUR LIFETIME of your lifetime.

But if you are 26 or older, and a believer in the UNPRECENDENTED IMPORTANCE OF THIS ELECTION, you're at best a useful idiot (and probably a useless eater).

It does not matter who holds the musical chair in the Oval Office. Under Bush II, the Republicans captured all three branches of government. There was thundering talk from Republicans and Democrats about the dramatic implications for abortion!

Nothing happened. Nothing changed. The supposedly anti-abortion Republicans had control of all three branches of government and Roe vs. Wade escaped without a scratch on it. The Republican voters who thought this was their chance to stop abortion saw their efforts lead to a whole lotta nothing.

And all the Democratic voters who gnashed their teeth about the impending disappearance of Roe vs Wade thanks to Republican control...also wrong. Nothing happened. Nothing changed.

Take a breath. This is not the most important election of your lifetime. Every election is the same, and it is an airtight bet that each new president is going to be worse than his precedessor. Bamboozled voters sprint to the polls every four years, and appropriately utter the same line beggars use: "Gimme some change, gimme some change!" And like those unfortunate beggars (who also don't see their fortunes change), each time they are left holding an empty cup.

Why Obama Will Be Reelected

Things are looking woeful for Mr. Obama. The economy has people gagging. The country’s credit rating was just reduced to AA. Jimmy Carter references are in the air. So why don’t I think the President is vulnerable?

All a Republican candidate can bring to the table is the promise of fiscal austerity. Couldn’t be a worse time for such a platform. Unemployment is high. Do you really think a majority of voters is going to get psyched about someone they think might snip their unemployment benefits?

The insolvency of Social Security/Medicare is finally being examined openly. Seniors are a serious voting bloc. Do you honestly expect those cash-strapped seniors, who don’t have a job market to fall back on, to come out in force for someone promising to “make the tough choices” on entitlements?

Sure, the recent Republican momentum has been built on the promise of smaller government. Trying to make that translate at the Executive level is a quick campaign bus ride to defeat. It wasn’t even effective enough to lock up the Senate.

Yes you say, but the debt downgrade has made everyone aware that we need fiscal austerity. Won't that be attractive to voters? No. Since when are voters rational? These adjustments have been needed for decades, yet Americans have continued voting for promises that can't be kept. What is going to make them forward-thinking now? Nothing. It is not "different this time."

Of course government is out of control. It always is. That doesn’t mean small government is going to capture voters’ imaginations. The average voter has never heard of Henry Hazlitt. He isn’t familiar with the idea of the public sector crowding out the private one. Even if he is and is concerned about it, if he thinks he is one missed unemployment check away from the Grapes of Wrath, he isn’t going to buckle down and vote for the long term. In the worst job market since World War II, talk of “boot straps” and “rugged individualism” is going to nudge more than enough people to the blue side of the aisle.

The other usual Republican plank is foreign policy. The country isn’t too excited about war these days. Even the attempts to incite people against Iran are being drowned out by the horrible economic headlines. And now that America's banana republic budgets are being discussed around dinner tables across the nation, highlighting the cost of war is no longer taboo, so if it becomes a choice between someone promising to spend on war or someone promising to spend on Medicare, war guy loses. The only foreign bogeyman that might be suitable for tricking voters is China, because the China bogeyman would be easy to scapegoat for America's rotting economy. I don’t see the Republican nominee pushing that one too far however, because unlike Afghanistan or Iran, China can actually fight back.

You ask: Why couldn’t a Republican just run on a more “moderate” platform? Because if he did, then he would be too similar to Obama, so who would rally behind him? No one. “Moderate” Republicans fail every time. Romney, who inspires no one, is being groomed for the nomination. The American electoral system is a zero sum game where turnout is king, and no one stampedes to vote for centrists. Someone like Michele Bachmann might alienate more people, but she would at least generate a high turnout. The same can’t be said of Romney (am I the only one who thinks Mitt is doing a Frank Drebin impression?).

Speaking of turnout, in '08 the young went for Obama in a big way. They might be less gaga for him this time, but c'mon, are they suddenly going to become zealots for Romney?

Obviously, not one promise made by either candidate is going to be kept. That has nothing to do with this discussion. We’re talking about whose lies are going to be the most persuasive.

Someone might ask me, “Okay then, who are you going to vote for?”

I don’t believe in voting.

Oh no, don’t tell me you’re one of those people!

I feel the same way about you.



http://twitter.com/#!/greatmikepayne