Verbal extremism in defense of civil liberties is no vice
A few months ago I mentioned
It's embarrassing to admit this now but I actually kind of liked Hillary back in the 90s, in part because she was hated by such putrid people. Jerry Falwell used to run infomercials for a video claiming that Bill and Hillary used the
posted by Jennifer Abel at 8:58 PM
Jennifer Abel is an American writer who began her career in print media three minutes before the Internet killed the industry. After starting at a small Connecticut daily she moved to the Hartford Advocate, an alt-weekly where her journalistic coups included infiltrating a Furries convention and working on a phone sex line (which fired her six hours later). Since then she’s written for, or been reprinted in, dozens of print and web outlets, including Playboy, the Guardian, Salon, AlterNet, Mashable, the Daily Dot and pretty much every website with the words "cannabis" or "legalize it" in the title. Once, when she was young and naïve and needed the money, she unwittingly edited SEO copy for a spammer. However, in light of the spambot comments she’s deleted from her own blogs since then, she figures she’s more than repaid that particular karmic debt. Jennifer is currently looking for professional, non-spam writing jobs; interested editors are enthusiastically invited to e-mail her.
6 Comments:
Come on in, Jennifer. The water's fine.
You'll find that your self esteem will get a big boost when you don't lower yourself to voting for the evil of two lessers.
I was saved from a life of shame when I was planning to vote for Nixon in 72. (McGovern's promise of a $1000 tax rebate was an insult to my integrity, that is, it wasn't high enough to buy my vote or the vote of most Americans.) Fortunately, I heard Toni Nathan and later John Hospers speak at the University of Washington. I don't know how anyone can live with the shame of voting for Republicans or Democrats.
Jennifer, in 2008 if you find your resolve flagging in the voting booth just hum a few bars of The Who's "We Won't Be Fooled Again."
I just think of voting for the Libertarian candidate as being the closest thing to voting for "none of the above".
I just think of voting for the Libertarian candidate as being the closest thing to voting for "none of the above".
No, that's an anitvote, you'd be better off not voting at all and saying "screw the entire system". I prefer to view it as voting for what I really want, not what is convenient for the masses. I can live with myself then, at least.
Pencil me in on the ballot. I should be available.
Like you, I generally view my presidential selections as a "lesser of two evils" choice. Unfortunately, it is usually more a lesser of n evils choice - if someone is politician enough to be the candidate from any significant party (i.e. on the ballot), (s)he is probably too venal for my taste.
However, at this stage of history, I think the neo-cons have taken us way too far in directions I don't like. I don't know that the Democrats will actually take us back the other way (in particular, repealing the "Homeland Security" erosions of our civil rights). But, they seem like the most likely group to accomplish this shift, just to be obviously "opposed" to the neo-cons.
The current administration has definitely proved that the label of "tax and spend" does not just apply to Democrats. Sure, the Republicans have just been spending, not apparently taxing. But, increasing the National Debt IS a tax - just a hidden one. on our future and our children.
Thus, while I have many objections to the Democrats in general, I think that for the immediate future they are our last, best hope. So, I'll at least vote Democratic in the primaries, and see if we can get a somewhat-decent nominee. If so, then I'll probably vote Democratic in the actual election.
I am currently not sure who I'd like to see as a nominee (much less president). From the Democratic field, I would not really mind Hillary - I actually agree with her old National Health Plan idea from when she was first lady. Her predictions have painfully come true - without the government directing health care, we now do have large businesses directing health care, instead. If it were the government, at least I'd have some (minuscule) say in how that works, and some established mechanism by which to express my preferences. Also, it would do much to counterbalance the negative effects of the monopolistic behavior of the drug companies (in strong collusion with the FDA, I'll admit). The fact that the neo-cons are so rabidly against her might make it even harder for her to get elected, but it's actually a point in her favor, to my mind.
I also think Obama has possibilities. However, I'm not at all sure that either of those two can actually win a national election, anyway. Racial and sexual prejudice are still a fact of life in this country.
What we really need, at this point, is a pragmatist. In recent presidents, Clinton was the only one I can think of. I didn't like many of the policies he espoused - but fortunately Congress was actually functioning then, and rejected most of the really bad ones. However, Clinton proved he could work with Congress, as well as the international community, and still get things done. He was also the only president in my voting lifetime to make any serious headway on our biggest governmental problem: deficit spending.
No matter who gets in from whatever party, the next President is going to have to raise taxes. The egregious deficit spending of Bush & cronies has made the burgeoning National Debt an actual security problem. We don't want to go through another Great Depression, nor do we want another period of hyperinflation. But those are basically the two most-likely results from the excessive minting of "funny money" - which is exactly what deficit spending is, without going through the legal effort of actually getting the money printed.
Anne, if the race were something like Obama v. Cheney I'd probably wind up voting for Obama. I just think there's a better than average chance there won't be much of a difference.
The difference between Hillary Clinton and the far-right Republicans likely to be nominated is that the Republicans would restrict naughty or violent video games in the name of God, country or morality, while Hillary would do it for the sake of public health and The Children.
The Hillary of the mid-90s is not the one we have today. The modern one has drifted too far right for my liking.
Post a Comment
<< Home