Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| The 'lesser of two evils' syndrome |
| 08.05.04 (10:09 pm) [edit] |
|
Chatting with my good friend, [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url], I decided to take it upon myself to convince the nation to overcome the syndrome that has plagued our political natures for so long- the 'lesser of two evils' syndrome. Forgive me for not having any official statistics, but I have no doubt that the majority of Americans have apathetically submitted to the view of politics, particularly when it comes to presidential politics, as necessarily about selecting the lesser of two evils. In this year's election, most see it as choosing between President Bush or John Kerry, despite the fact that neither may be considered desirable. Those who favor Kerry tend to operate under the 'anyone but Bush' mentality, not caring how much actual support they have for John Kerry as president. As long as he is not George W. Bush, he'll do, seems to be the opinion. Conversely, many of those supporting Bush for re-election actually have very negative opinions of the current Administration, but feel that John Kerry's platform is unacceptable. Generally, there is the view that casting a vote for a third party candidate is wasting your vote. Depending on your viewpoint, this is true. It can also be true depending on your location. But in many ways, it is the most significant vote you can cast. Consider, for example, a state such as Idaho. Bush has a clear majority lead throughout the state. This means that, in all likelihood, all of Idaho's electoral votes will go to President Bush. Any vote cast in the state of Idaho for [b]any[/b] candidate other than Bush could be considered a wasted vote, in the sense that these votes would, in the end, not be counted toward electing the next president. However, this does not urge Democratic voters in Idaho to give in and vote for Bush. The reason for this is that these votes against Bush act as protest votes. They may not have any tangible effectiveness, but they are symbolic of disapproval of the state's chosen candidate. They also prevent the winning candidate from having as great a mandate. As I said, these votes include any candidate other than Bush; it is, in essence, equivocal to vote for John Kerry or Michael Badnarik or Ralph Nader or a tree. The difference lies in the significance for the future. Votes for the Democratic candidate in a state that will undoubtedly go to the Republican mean very little (just as votes for a Republican in a predominantly Democratic state are effectively meaningless). They demonstrate that the Republican does not have a complete mandate, but do little else. On the other hand, votes for third party candidates can create a new political future, one where perhaps the phrase 'lesser of two evils' need not be uttered. A vote for a third party candidate is symbolic. It is a protest vote, a demand for change. The fewer third party votes cast, the lesser the chance of this call for change being heard. However, the more votes a third party candidate gets, the more likely attention will be given to the party, and, in time, the party can be granted an equal footing with the major parties. The only way for the message of liberty, freedom, non-coercion, and individual rights can be made into reality is for parties such as the [url=http://lp.org]Libertarian Party[/url] to gain enough support so that they can effectively contend in national politics. Rise above the 'lesser of two evils' mentality and embrace the cause of liberty. Don't waste your vote, support change in America. |
| 18 Comments |
| The arrogance of George W. Bush |
| 08.05.04 (5:34 pm) [edit] |
|
The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, made one of the most arrogant and frightening statements several days ago, yet there has been scant attention paid to it. When asked if, hypothetically, he had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war started, would he have invaded still, Bush replied that he would have. His reasoning being that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who had the potential to build his arsenal of weaponry. Perhaps this response by our president doesn't surprise you- I can't say that I was shocked by him saying this; it is the implication of this statement that is shocking. The Bush Doctrine of preemption now extends not only to regimes that pose immediate threats to our nation's security, but to, well, anyone. There are countless world leaders and various nations that are vehemently against the United States, many of these posing somewhat of a threat. There are many nations that have the capacity for building their arsenal and creating weapons of mass destruction. But it is not in our nation's best interest to embrace this ideology of warfare. When we allow war to be considered justified by nothing more than the potentiality of a state to build its arsenal and possibly attack us, we operate under an 'anything goes' foreign policy. It is a dangerous precedent that President Bush has set. Preemption is one thing, but basing a war on nothing more than circumstantial evidence is dangerous policy. Naturally, Bush would not declare that his decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. He is only trying to compensate for the faulty intelligence the war was supposedly based on. But by making this statement, he is providing a self-indictment for what liberals have been claiming all along- that Bush had intentions of a war in Iraq all along. There is a difference between defending the actions of the Administration regarding Iraq by saying that, though there turned out to be no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq as they had thought there would be, the war was justified because they had reason to think there were WMD and Hussein was a dangerous man who could have harmed the US in the future, and saying that even knowing that there were no WMD, we still would have attacked. I disagree with both statements (in fact, I don't even believe the war would have been justified had there been WMD), but the first is only illogical, the second coldly arrogant. Imagine the President of the United States announcing that we are entering into a war with another nation... and giving no justification. The only reason given being that the leader of the nation had the capacity to attain dangerous weapons and be a threat. While security is important, indescriminately starting wars is not the way to ensure security. It will only promote hostile attitudes against the US. But now we have the President stating plainly that he would have invaded Iraq even had he known beforehand that there were no WMD. The main justification for the war, and the single claim that gave national support for the war was the claim that there were stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. There is no way the war would have been approved had there not even been that claim. But Bush sees no problem with this- his newfound 'diplomacy' of combat overrides the need for support, and more important, the need for justification. Why this admission by President Bush has not been a bigger deal, I do not know. Personally, I was appalled and somewhat terrified when I heard it. My only hope is that Congress will be more hesitant to allow us to enter into war in the future, and that Bush will never have the power to make such a decision again. |
| 12 Comments |
