Nathan, this is in response to your comment on Katie's blog about why I feel one way politically and vote another. Well, it's very simple. I'm fairly liberal at heart on many things. However, I just feel that politically wise it's better to err on the side of conservation; I don't want a bunch of liberal freaks out there making my laws. I want people who are somewhat conservatively fanatic keeping control of things. They're not always right and they don't always do good but neither do liberals and their crazy liberal ideas scare me.
Ok. I'm gonna say it again, but more explicitly.
To err on the side of "conservation" is to err on the liberal side. To err on the side of "conservativism" is to err on the conservative side.
I acknowledge and accept the rest of your feelings; I just hope you vote accordingly.
Let me explain what I mean by that.
Many people assume that the modern republican is a honest-to-god conservative, when that can be the farthest thing from the truth. A good conservative believes in local government, strong military, education decisions made by parents, and low taxes for all. Essentially, a good conservative wants the federal government to maintain an army and otherwise stay out of everyone's face.
But that is definitely not what a modern republican always stands for. For example, a modern republican who professes that there is reason for violence against judges, or who seeks to legislate our beliefs by forcing prayer in school, or who seeks to reduce taxes on the rich by pushing even harder taxes on the poor is NOT a true conservative.
In fact, such a person, in a sense, is more liberal than a liberal, because this person wants the federal government to over-reach its power, which is the exact opposite of the conservative mantra.
Being a liberal-minded fellow myself, I often don't mind over-reaching federal power, if the good of the people or the world is at stake. It just really irritates me when the people doing it are doing it for their own minority interests.
A nice example of this modern republican ANTI-conservative posturing is that conference that is either happening, will happen, or already did happen called "The War Against Christians."
Now, normally a meeting with this name might be held by anti-christians (e.g. crazy muslims or crazy athiests). However, in this case it is being held by the so-called religious right (i.e. the modern FAKE conservatives).
Now one might wonder who exactly is waging this war against christians. As far as I can tell, christians control every seat of federal power and is pushing an agenda that is doing everything in its power to undermine science, which wouldn't be possible if they were the weak and embattled minority.
In fact, as far as I can tell, the only people waging this war ARE these crazy christians and the demons in their head.
It is a rally convention. It is a place to teach people to fight against those who might be waging war against christians. But who could that be? Could it be the pornographers? Could it be the man standing at the street corner, voicing his opinion? How about those kids who dress funny at college?
Screw it! Let's make it all of them!
I know I'm going a bit overboard with this, but I'm trying to make a point. Warriors (soldiers) are taught to dehumanize the opponent, whoever that might be.
And when an individual is no longer a human, it is ok to be angry that they don't agree with you. It is ok to totally ignore their view point. Heck, it's ok drive them into the dirt if they get in your way.
These people are not the face of conservativism. True conservatives do not want the government telling ANYONE what to do. These religious folk want the government to tell everyone what to do.
So that's my point, Kay. I don't particularly agree with your original goal of erring on the side of conservativism, but I respect it. What I don't respect is voting for people who are out to eliminate religious (or any other kind of) rights, because you think they are less likely to screw up the country than liberals.
As far as I'm concerned, these anti-conservative, religious republicans are the mostly likely group to screw up the country. At least, they make me very nervous.
11 comments:
Concerning beautiful people:
I actually find it not quite like that. The beautiful people in high school seem to be doing equally as good or as bad as people who were not beautiful.
Of course, I may be wrong. Who can say?
Oh. And the Royals aren't giving me anything to root for.
Nathan, I can appreciate your points on my statement. And you're right, I did mean conservativism not conservation. As although I think we should protect the environment, I'm way to lazy to actually personally do anything about it. That's why we have activist groups. However, I just don't agree with your views on Republicans/conservatists. There are always going to be people in both parties who swing further in their direction. I agree in principle with most of the Republicans viewpoints and not Liberals when speaking about politics. So I vote Republican. In all of the elections I've voted in so far I felt the Republican was the better candidate in terms of principles. This is not a moral decision but an opinion agreement decision. But what you also have to remember is that I'm just not that into politics. I couldn't argue this discussion well to save my life. I only have my opinion as sad and misinformed as it may be:) However, I always like a good discussion. SO everyone else feel free to add as well.
I propose a new political party...the Betzencrats!!
-gilbert
But kay, if you want to protect the environment, you're voting for the wrong people.
I think I'm a Republocrat.
Both parties are freaking screwed up. If some person would just step up and be a politician for social justice, then I'd be ALL about him (or her).
I'm not so into conservation that I would vote Liberal simply for that. Activist groups exist regardless of who is in office. Besides, it doesn't matter who is President the world is still going to be an f'd up place with shitty things going on. Call me pessimistic but it's true. It doesn't matter who you vote for b/c either candidate is going to do things that piss you off and please you. It's just the way it is.
of course i don't actually mean it doesn't matter at all but you gotta admit you can vote for someone and really like them but they're still going to do stupid shitty things that you think are wrong. That's politics
That's probably true, Kay. Politicians of every stripe tend to be unpleasant individuals in their actions.
I guess at some point you just have to ask which kind of unpleasantness you'd rather put up with.
For example, compare Bush and Clinton. Clinton was primarily disliked because he was irritatingly smart, a big supporter of NAFTA, and morally loose in the sexual department.
Meanwhile, Bush is disliked for starting a war under false pretenses, creating a culture of fear, condoning torture, and driving the nation so far into debt that it's hard to see the light.
I guess this is a case of picking your poison. Would you rather have a good man but a terrible president, or a good president but not a good man?
Vote Vinick.
No! Santos all the way!
Post a Comment