Why ideas are bad: On Haiti and why you should vote for Ralph Nader

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 Bookmark this site!

Why ideas are bad: On Haiti and why you should vote for Ralph Nader 02.28.04 (6:10 pm)   [edit] Escalating violence in Haiti as a result of opposition to the President is demonstrative of the manipulation of ideas. A good idea becomes dangerous when it is turned into dogma and is misused. To quote a passage from my favorite novel: "The problem starts at the secondary level, not with the originator or developer of the idea but with the people who are attracted by it, who adopt it, who cling to it until their last nail breaks, and who invariably lack the overview, flexibility, imagination, and, most importantly, sense of humor, to maintain it in the spirit in which it was hatched. Ideas are made by masters, dogma by disciples, and the Buddha is always killed on the road. ... "That is how the loving ideas of Jesus Christ became the sinister cliches of Christianity. That is why virtually every revolution in history has failed: the oppressed, as soon as they seize power, turn into the oppressors, resorting to totalitarian tactics to "protect the revolution." That is why minorities seeking the abolition of prejudice become intolerant, minorities seeking peace become militant, minorities seeking equality become self-righteous, and [b]minorities seeking liberation become hostile[/b]." Basically, good ideas lose their initial purity when turned into dogma or the guidlines for any sort of social movement. They become overly powerful, resulting in narrow-sightedness (or tunnel vision). This is why those on both sides of the conflict in Haiti have turned hostile. They become so engrossed in the concept, or the idea, that they lose sight of the fact that they are only killing the idea themselves. When the idea becomes overly powerful, those following it begin to consider any actions taken in the course of achieving the desired goal to be justified for the cause. Considering the same premise in regard to the Presidential election in the U.S., it is clear that those who state that a vote for Nader or another candidate other than represented by the two major parties is wasteful are embracing a dangerous idea. The "anyone but Bush" mentality fosters narrow-sightedness. If the focus is solely on defeating Bush, we lose sight of the issues important to our nation. Right-wing tyranny is typically only replaced by left-wing tyrrany. To only consider the importance of replacing Bush is to neglect the consequences we face by whomever it is that replaces him. Now, I know that I am only talking about the extreme view of the situation, but many do seem overly concerned with getting Bush out of office, to the extent that it is unimportant who he is replaced by. This brings me to Ralph Nader. Why is it such a big deal for a person who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat to run for president? It is absurd to claim that Nader caused Gore the presidency in 2000- no one can be responsible for causing another candidate to lose. I am not in any way endorsing Nader, I certainly will not vote for him. But this is not because I am afraid he could cost the Democratic contender the election, but because I disagree with many of his ideas and policies. That is what is really important. Few things would make me happier than to see Bush out of office, but I am not willing to force this to happen by replacing him with someone who will only reverse his policies and enact his own bad policies. When it comes down to it, what matters is who it is that is best suited for the presidency and whose policies will benefit the nation the most. Whoever's policies are the most appealing to you is who you should vote for. When government is nothing but a battle for power and politics focuses on shifting that power, we lose sight of what is important.   posted by: SamAdams (reply) post date: 02.28.04 (3:20 pm) I agree with you about ideas that become dogma and when original meaning and truth is lost-- becomes dangerous ideology. I also agree that Anyone But Bush is narrow-sightedness. However, Nader can't win... I admire Nader very much. But sometimes one must move in stages and cannot achieve a goal in one step. First, we must get rid of Bush who is a dangerously stupid and corrupt criminal. Taking our nation back, we must then oust corporate-owned whores be they Repug or Dem... Over the next decade (it will take that long) we must built up 3rd parties. To do so requires investment that won't be available under Bush who is driving us into a 3rd world bankrupt economy. If you dream for a house-- sometimes you must start out with an apartment and work upwards. Same thing here-- We must get rid of Bush-- Kerry is a decent man-- We must pressure Kerry to enact policies that move us back towards the US Constitution & Bill of Rights that Bush is undermining. Then let's develop 3rd parties that are independent of corporate pimps. Thanks for a good blog, with intelligent thoughts. :)SAM posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.28.04 (3:32 pm) Reply to: SamAdams Thanks, Sam. I agree with you that Nader can't win and third parties are not at the level for competing quite yet. The realistic approach is as you've said, building up third parties. This requires getting the message out that we want something other than what we have now. If you agree with Kerry for the most part, it is better to vote for him in the hopes of ousting Bush than it is to vote for someone with no chance of winning. However, if you don't agree with Kerry or Bush's policies, I think you should vote for someone who's ideas you share. But it is idealistic, and maybe there's no room for idealism in politics. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.28.04 (8:00 pm) Reply to: SamAdams I'm still trying to figure out on exactly what issue Kerry differs from Bush. Tax cuts is the ONLY issue I can see them differing on. An anti-marriage Amendment is not going to pass Congress, so Bush won't get the chance to sign it. Both of them are trying to pull out of Iraq. Both have hinted at attacking Iran as part of foriegn policy. On the rare issues that the do differ, such as abortion, Congress is never going to pass any important bill on that issue. I agree that you have to take things one step at a time. But which is a step in the right direction- getting 3rd parties enough votes to participate in the debates and have their message broadcast to the world, or electing a Bush Twin just out of spite? posted by: progressive (reply) post date: 02.29.04 (9:50 am) Reply to: therealspartacus007 I agree with you that Kerry shares a lot of shortcomings (especially the significant corporate ties) with Bush. However, the task to which we strive for is not merely replacing Bush, but his entire cabinet - Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and all the other hawks. While Kerry may still have the tendency to acede to corporate interests, i believe that he would more accessible to progressive influence and hence can be pressurised by his base to do otherwise, as opposed to Bush and company. That's the main difference. I may be wrong though ;( posted by: progressive (reply) post date: 02.29.04 (9:59 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 Once again, i'd like to kowtow to you for an excellent blog i agree with you that when our ideas become so internalised are inadvertably transformed into dogma, we tend to see the world as an over-simplistic black and white dichotomy. This makes us dangerously susceptible to the "you're either with us or against us" school of thought, and lose sight of our initial aims. While idealism may tend to obscure the reality of the highly rigid political system, hanging on to that idealism would keep our minds open, and prevent passive submission unto the allure of rigid extremism. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.29.04 (4:45 pm) The problem is not that Nader cost Gore the election, but that we have a system that allows a plurality to elect somebody when the majority perfers somebody else. We have no constitutional requirement for such a system. Although a run off would be impractical for a presidential election, which must be held on one day, a "buit in run off" is practical and easy to implement. If voters were allowed to rank their choices, they would be able to vote for their preferred candidate without fear that if the candidate has no chance, the vote would be wasted. If a candidate is not one of the top candidates at the close of the election, the system could then determine which of the leading candidates is preferred by most people by examining the next choice of those who voted for somebody who was eliminated. Mathematicians have long ago worked out the details. In a future race with the likes of Perot or Nader, a voter could vote his conscience without regard to whether the person can win, and would not be taking his vote away from his preferred choice among the ultimate front runners. It would also give people a view of which candidate people truly prefer. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 02.29.04 (5:28 pm) Erm, I'm still not convinced to vote for ralphy ;p posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.29.04 (7:50 pm) Reply to: progressive This is true- and don't forget the ever present Supreme Court Justice appointment power- that's the only difference I could find between Bush and Gore. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.01.04 (12:16 pm) Reply to: RedTigress Lol, good! The point is, you should vote for whoever it is you think is most qualified and whose policies are in the best interest of the nation. There's too much politics involved in our political system. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.01.04 (12:17 pm) Reply to: progressive Haha, that's pretty funny. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.01.04 (12:35 pm) Reply to: mblog I actually did a term paper on the Electoral College a few years ago and discussed numerous possible reforms. With each of the proposed reforms (and believe me, there are quite a few) there are problems, and it seems that it is nearly impossible to concoct a voting system that is fair and accurate with no downfalls to it. The system of ranking is a fairly good idea, except that it relies on an overly complicated means of determining the outcome. The difficulty is that first the primary votes, or the candidate ranked number one, must be counted and then, once it is determined who the major contenders are, move on to the candidates ranked second and third and so on. There is the problem of the candidate who finally is determined to win the most votes not having a true or clear mandate, as he may have been many of the voters' second or third choice. There are probably more problems with the current system than with the system of ranking candidates, but the likelihood of getting a system that's been in place for a couple centuries replaced with one that also has clear problems is not likely to work. We need to come up with a system that is fair and easy to implement, that has no major problems. As it is, under the current Electoral College system, the true will of the voters isn't represented. Example: If a candidate wins California's 54 electoral votes by only one popular vote, it accounts for losing by tens of thousands in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Also, the current system makes it impossible for a third party candidate to get elected. The political parties generally select the members of the Electoral College and there are no third party delegates. In 1996, Ross Perot received 7,866,284 popular votes, but not a single Electoral College vote. Some sort of reform is necessary, otherwise we lose the true intent of the Electoral College- to fairly represent the will of the people. The only problem is that there are few solutions that are close to viable. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 03.01.04 (4:14 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Amen ;) posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 03.06.04 (3:26 pm) Reply to: progressive Do you consider unions as a special interest? Why do unions always endorse (with extorted employee dues) a Democrat? Henry Wallace, FDR's vice president, left his position and started the "Progressive Party", a political party backed by Stalin and which took its orders from the Kremlin. I'm not old by any means, but I will cast my vote for a candidate (though I am affiliated with none) who is least likely to destroy our lives, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness--or whom is least likely to destroy a chance to earn money honestly. The higher the tax-rate, and the more visions of anarchy (or as it is stated in left circles: freedoms), and the furtherence of a non-productive, least-able, welfare state of the Nation, the only outcome will historically be: those in power against those who cannot survive paying 75% tax. I know I may not make much sense at times, or I may sound confusing, but what I know (and what I have seen personnaly) of post-Communist countries, is that when they can't take anymore money from you, they start taking lives. N posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 03.06.04 (3:41 pm) Reply to: RedTigress Hey Red: I am not, maybe as you may have read in some posts, a religious person, but I do know that Bush is the only one who will defend our great nation of Israel. There are many issues, but historically, the extreme left (like Nadar) has no intent on protecting or defending Israel. (Though, they can defend themselves on their own, and in good order). N posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 03.07.04 (12:50 am) Reply to: Nivek Yes, I'm aware, Nivek. :) Thanks! :) Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins