Dilemma
I've gotten to the point where I'm disgusted with the fact that the neo-cons have shanghai'd the Republican Party. Kim du Toit likes to call them the Stupid Party, but I think it's gone beyond that. They've become the Arrogant Party. They've abandoned the small-government, non-intrusive roots of the old Republican Party, and, intoxicated with power, they're only going to get worse (i.e. become more like Democrats). The borders are a mess, education sucks, and spending is out of control. Worst of all, they still haven't come to terms with the fact that we're at war with the religion of Islam, not just terrorism. The prospect of registering my approval for the Arrogant Party vis-à-vis my vote is becoming more and more painful. However, the prospect of having to live with the Democrats (i.e. the Evil Party) holding the reins of power is dreadful. I'm truly chilled to the bone by the threat issued by Democrats to ABC over the airing of The Path to 9/11*. If ABC loses its broadcast license over this, the 1st amendment is effectively dead, and we might as well be Cuba.
I've never liked the idea of holding my nose while I vote for something that's only incrementally less horrible than the alternative. What incentive is that for them to change? And hell will freeze over before I vote for something I believe is evil just to get back at someone else. The remaining alternative is to simply stay home on election day. The sad truth is that people only change in the face of a crisis. I'm almost at the point where I think the Republicans need that crisis -- a resounding loss in November -- to realize that they need to return to their core values in order to win votes. I'd be prepared to live with the consequences if it means we can get rid of the neo-cons and find genuine Republican candidates in time for 2008.
* Update: Looks like the issue may be moot already. This would be worse than ABC losing its license, because such a blatant trampling of the 1st would have shaken a lot of people up; caving in just emboldens the thugs. Incidentally, this is the way the Social Democratic Party in my husband's native Finland keeps its strangle-hold on broadcast media. It's understood that if you don't toe the party line, you can kiss your broadcast license goodbye.
I've never liked the idea of holding my nose while I vote for something that's only incrementally less horrible than the alternative. What incentive is that for them to change? And hell will freeze over before I vote for something I believe is evil just to get back at someone else. The remaining alternative is to simply stay home on election day. The sad truth is that people only change in the face of a crisis. I'm almost at the point where I think the Republicans need that crisis -- a resounding loss in November -- to realize that they need to return to their core values in order to win votes. I'd be prepared to live with the consequences if it means we can get rid of the neo-cons and find genuine Republican candidates in time for 2008.
* Update: Looks like the issue may be moot already. This would be worse than ABC losing its license, because such a blatant trampling of the 1st would have shaken a lot of people up; caving in just emboldens the thugs. Incidentally, this is the way the Social Democratic Party in my husband's native Finland keeps its strangle-hold on broadcast media. It's understood that if you don't toe the party line, you can kiss your broadcast license goodbye.
2 Comments:
Libertarian Party website: http://www.lp.org/
Ed,
While I agree with libertarians on most domestic issues, I think they have their heads in the sand about foreign policy. Also, I sympathize with Ayn Rand's reasons for rejecting libertarianism, which is that there doesn't seem to be any cohesive philosophical foundation for their beliefs.
Rus,
I'm a little surprised that the libs let the curtain fall on this one. They usually try to maintain a veneer of moderateness, but I guess they just can't help themselves.
Post a Comment
Testing ...
<< Home