The 2012 US Election

[Primula Baggins]

Are you saying there's no difference between the candidates?

There are certainly solid reasons to prefer one over the other. The reasons change depending on your political beliefs and probably your financial situation, but they are real reasons.

Saying you plan to vote for someone is not anointing them as perfect. It can just mean they're the lesser of two evils.

Saying you don't plan to vote for someone is not an attack on them. It can just mean you don't think their policies will be good for the country (or, to really cut to the truth, for yourself or your family).

This imperfect process is the process we have. Giving up because it is imperfect just cedes the field to the extremists at both ends of the spectrum. The fact is that a choice has to be made; this country can't pursue two conflicting agendas at once.

[Holbytla]

There was no point in me ever trying to get my point across here. I knew it was futile, and so it was remiss for me to even try.

Thanks to my liberal allies, all I have to say is GO Romney!!

[yovargas]

I got that you're angry/frustrated but it's not at all clear to me what it is that you're directing your anger/frustration at.

[axordil]

Holby--

Of course Obama is a servant of the current order, as much as Romney is. So too the two parties are merely different wings of the same baseline assumptions. As the old British joke goes, there are two parties in the US--the Republicans, who are like our Tories, and the Democrats, who...are like our Tories.

As far as ideologies go, I could attack the President on any number of grounds, ranging from expanding the security state to failing to push hard enough, fast enough on any number of issues, in service of the ideas he expressed in his first campaign. He's made mistakes, miscalculations, and we don't agree on everything. I'm not even sure our world views are deeply compatible.

Romney and I, on the other hand, agree on nothing, and I'm pretty positive our world views are diametrically opposed (at least the world view he's evinced this campaign).

What would you have of me? There's nothing the GOP can do or say in their current state that makes me remotely interested in supporting them. The Democrats, on the other hand, throw me a bone now and then. For example, the ACA isn't what I wanted for health care...but it's significantly better than nothing for a lot of people.

American politics has been ugly through most of its history. The period from the late 50s to the early 90s is actually an aberration in terms of bipartisan action, due in no small part to overall growth for half a century after WWII. It's unfortunate we're swinging back towards viciousness, but not surprising.

ETA--I mean, people used to beat each other on the floor of the Senate. We had an honest to god Civil War roughly eighty years after the country formed, in which hundreds of thousands of people died because politics got just that nasty.

[Holbytla]

I have seen nothing on any type of social media, including any message boards, that leads me to believe that people are aware of their surroundings.
While that statement may be and probably is inherently untrue, you wouldn't ever know that from the partisan diatribes pervading every aspect of on-line chatter. I have yet to read a post (excepting LM's) or blurb on FB that was anything but blindly partisan and disparaging.

Even in the arena of measured discourse, I am greeted with this left handed shot at the mere nomination of a VP;

Well, Romney has made it official: the race is between Obama and Paul Ryan. Has a presidential candidate ever so blatantly acknowledged their own irrelevancy?

Really? What portion of that post is fair and in any way an attempt of furthering the conversation or truly trying to depict the status of Washington politics?

I get that people want to get behind a candidate that puts forth their own ideals. I get that it is right that everyone should be able to marry or receive health benefits. That doesn't mean for one nano second that I should buy into that candidates rhetoric, or turn a blind eye into what has and has not transpired these last four years.

I am a liberal and I am ashamed of what has happened.

The lack of leadership has been appalling, and the same old political lies that every politician lets slip from their lips is more than I can tolerate at this point. I can never ever ever forgive Obama for for conveniently letting slip forth that he would bring the troops back home, even though he knew full well that was a promise he could never keep. Unforgivable.

Just because he supports a health care system for all, doesn't mean this particular system is sound or is right for this country. He has no ability to get bills passed, even though half of the congress is in his favor, yet Bill Clinton, for all of his warts, managed to be a decent president despite having to deal with a republican controlled house and senate.

Nothing short of indignant rage suffices here. Rage against Washington politics as usual, despite being sold a bill of goods labelled hope and change. Rage against, yet again, having those hopes being played upon by another politician seeking office, and more than anything, rage against people that are willing to blindly and effusively support that type of unacceptable behavior.

Mitt Romney? Are you freaking kidding me?
He actually has a chance and there is no one to blame for that but Obama and the sycophants that haven't the ability to see no further than their nose or their own agendas.

The system is nothing short of despicable, and anyone that prescribes to it for the perceived furthering of their ideals is doing nothing but adding to the woe that is this country.

I have lived in a state in which Mitt Romney was governor and I can state unequivocally that he was by far the worst governor in my lifetime.
The fact that he has a shot at winning this election is more than enough to make me want to vomit volumes of disgust. The fact that people want to bandwagon jump an unacceptable president because he has perceived ideals makes me want to vomit more volumes of disgust.

Obama is unacceptable. Romney is unacceptable. Washington politics is unacceptable.

Stop accepting the lesser of two evils and right this ship!!
Anything less is acceptance and part of the problem!

[axordil]

I share much of your frustration, Holby. The system is broken to the point where I honestly don't have much hope it can fix itself. The last 120 years has seen a gradual concentration of power in the hands of the very richest people in the country, and the only reason we still have anything resembling freedom is the fact some of them have consciences.

I don't see a pretty way out, though. The best that we could hope for is a general societal collapse, and even that would result in millions of deaths and suffering on a scale not seen in this hemisphere since...ever. Not to mention what would happen elsewhere.

And there's no guarantee the aftermath would be better. It could be much worse.

[Primula Baggins]

How do we right the ship if we don't do anything but complain about the ship?

[anthriel]

I think Holby has an amazingly good point, here, and I applaud him for having the courage to post about it.

The bipartisan rhetoric has gotten so... completely ridiculous that I have reached some level of... apathy, really. (And I am not necessarily talking about what is posted here; this place, while solidly shifted left, is far fairer than most places I see.)

All the demonizing of the other guy, no matter who he/she is, simply because they are "the other guy", makes me write off anything said in the rest of the sentence as echo-chamber "rah-rah for my team" background noise.

People are so caught up in their own passion that it is difficult to realize that the other side might actually have a good point or two. It's not going to happen. John McCain was about as centrist a Republican as has been put up for the vote in a long time, as centrist a candidate, really, and it didn't matter; no die-hard liberal was going to vote for him.

Liberals vote for the Democratic candidate, and conservatives vote for the Republican candidate. Whilst slinging mud with both hands.

So, yeah. I relegate it to background noise. I feel like there is no place to actually talk about what I really want to know that isn't so swayed by the passionate "our team is best!" hoopla that I have really given up on any of this. Politicians lie, and their teams exist to make the other guy (and the people who support them) look like dark-souled evil people who want to take candy from babies.

There are no "fair" discussions. Cynical, you say? Maybe a little.

It's not just liberals carte-blanche bashing whoever is conservative, which I do tend to notice, being a conservative. It's also conservatives carte-blanche bashing liberals, which I get a lot around here, since my hubby is ultra-conservative and impervious to any thoughts which are not.

.

.

.

Anyway, not to flagellate people for discussing what they want to discuss on a messageboard where so many agree with them; I am envious, actually, because I feel so a fish out of water in this forum.

I think politics, as they are, are extremely damaging to our country. Just sayin'.

[yovargas]

Stop accepting the lesser of two evils and right this ship!!

By doing what, exactly?

[Frelga]

Cthulu for President?

(I would much prefer Vetinari*, myself)

No, seriously, what, Holby?

[vison]

It doesn't do any good to throw up your hands and say "It's no use!" Then the only people who get involved are on the extremes.

I find American politics to be very . . . . poisonous. Canadian politics are not as bad. Not yet. Although each election cycle here we see more and more of these idiotic attack ads so popular in the US.

I can only say that if voters are really swayed by the nasty, childish "gotcha" ads, they deserve what they get. I think those ads are preaching to the choir and the vast majority of people are longing for some reason.

Is it because in the US you "have" to be either a Democrat or Republican?

If I was an American I would be voting for Mr. Obama, as the lesser of 2 evils. While Mr. Romney is identified as "conservative", he fits no description of "conservative" that would suit me.

[Griffon64]

anthy - If I could pull you right through the internetz for a hug and a tall glass of ice tea ( is it as miserably hot and humid in Phoenix as it is here in Bakersfield? ) I would do so in a heartbeat! We can sit down and talk at length, you and me, because I could have written your post.

I'll have to settle for one of these:

.
.
.

It doesn't do any good to throw up your hands and say "It's no use!" Then the only people who get involved are on the extremes.

This.

Is it because in the US you "have" to be either a Democrat or Republican?

I still can't wrap my head around the "Rep or Dem or bust!" politics of the USA. For a country so adamant about personal choice and freedom, some parts of the status quo are accepted pretty darn unquestioningly, and it almost always surprises me. Being content to hand over your political determination to a firm two-party system seems an astounding surrender of personal choice. But since it is what is in place, those who do not agree with, for instance, the Tea Party wing of the GOP, will have to rouse themselves and rout them. That probably wouldn't happen until it is more painful to do nothing than to revolt, which isn't a pleasant prospect.

If I was an American I would be voting for Mr. Obama, as the lesser of 2 evils. While Mr. Romney is identified as "conservative", he fits no description of "conservative" that would suit me.

I agree, though our reasons may differ! While I'm by and large conservative-ish, I do have notable exceptions as far as some parts of social conservatism goes, as well as some areas of science and nature. In fact, it may be a shorter list to say where I differ from the Democrat philosophy than the Republican one, but the parts where I disagree with Democrats, I disagree so strongly that I have to remain with "conservative-ish" as my description for myself. For now, though, I simply cannot entertain voting for a party that would even consider trying to roll back women's reproductive rights. So de facto, though many parts of my political philosophy differs from the Democrat view, I will vote Democrat in the upcoming election unless the Republican party changes its tune. As long as the Republican party humors even a single office holder pining for the metaphorical "barefoot and in the kitchen" or "aspirin between the knees" days, I cannot vote Republican. A woman's unrestricted access to birth control, regardless of her socio-economic status, is, to me, such a fundamental underpinning of a fair and modern society that I vehemently oppose any political party who says different.

[Túrin Turambar]

There are two main factors that drive the two-party system in the U.S. - the indivisibility of the office of President and the number of people in some of the constituencies (the extreme example being California's Senate seat, with 38 million people). Between them they prevent the smaller parties that you see, say, in the U.K., which still uses first-past-the-post, or Canada.

[yovargas]

For now, though, I simply cannot entertain voting for a party that would even consider trying to roll back women's reproductive rights.

I was saying a similar thing to a friend of mine recently. I am more rightish than leftish on various issues. And IMO gay marriage and other such issues are far, far, far from the most important issues we have to face. Yet even if I totally agreed with a bunch of the really important policies of a candidate, I don't know how I could possibly go into a voting booth and vote for a character who wants to stop me from ever getting married. It's such a frustrating position to be in. Why do we let this damn 2-party system link vastly unrelated things like immigration and health care and reproductive rights and gay marriage into one big blob of Left and Right???

[Túrin Turambar]

For now, though, I simply cannot entertain voting for a party that would even consider trying to roll back women's reproductive rights.

I was saying a similar thing to a friend of mine recently. I am more rightish than leftish on various issues. And IMO gay marriage and other such issues are far, far, far from the most important issues we have to face. Yet even if I totally agreed with a bunch of the really important policies of a candidate, I don't know how I could possibly go into a voting booth and vote for a character who wants to stop me from ever getting married. It's such a frustrating position to be in. Why do we let this damn 2-party system link vastly unrelated things like immigration and health care and reproductive rights and gay marriage into one big blob of Left and Right???

Because it's more common for people to have broadly similiar 'left' and 'right' positions on those issues than wildly different ones (although it does happen, as you demonstrate).

[yovargas]

But isn't that because the two party system has sold these wildly unrelated ideas together as packages? I certainly think so as I see absolutely no reason why people who, say, want strong anti-immigration laws should be more likely to want anti-abortion laws. Or why people who oppose Obama's health care plan should be more likely to oppose gay marriage. There is nothing philosophically connecting these ideas.

(I was rather amused to recently hear how Ryan, who's famously influenced by Ayn Rand, who was an intensely fervent atheist (it wasn't until I read her books that I started calling myself an atheist instead of an agnostic), had to point out how he's only influenced by her economic ideas. One of the most famous and influential "conservative" thinkers would have been utterly appalled by all this "religious right" stuff!)

[Túrin Turambar]

But isn't that because the two party system has sold these wildly unrelated ideas together as packages?

Not really - party platforms change over time, and the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't have ended up where they are today if there weren't two large groupings of people pushing those ideas. Also, it isn't like you get wildly different political axes in other western countries, although there are differences. Finally, people's political positions tend to stem from core assumptions about people and society, and there are significantly fewer of those than there are policy questions to be decided upon.

[yovargas]

I'm very much not convinced. Particularly the religious conservative aspect of the parties could, IMO, just as likely and arbitrarily been grafted onto "leftish" economic ideas as to "rightish" ones. (For example, "Jesus would have supported welfare programs" type thoughts and "Jesus doesn't like gay sex and abortions" are a pretty easy ideological fits for Bible believers.) Though it amuses me now to realize that both Marx and Rand were both strident atheists.

[axordil]

In the 1920s, the GOP was still primarily the party of the industrialized, capitalized, multiethnic Northeast and Midwest, and the Democrats primarily the party of the white Protestant agrarian South. These were the Civil War alignments. Over the next fifty years, the geographic base for each party flipped. This has made for part of the odd alignments between social and economic issues.

[Folca]

How do we right the ship if we don't do anything but complain about the ship?

I admire the idealism. There is no righting the ship. Our system is too convoluted and diffuse to right itself. All nations fall. The US will destroy itself, it needs no real enemy. A variety of factors, including geography make a physical conquest of the US unrealistic.

This nation will fall, though the declaration point of when it has failed will llikely be contested by future historians. And, when the period of chaos subsides, the system of government in control will be much more rigid and streamlined...most likely a dictatorship.

I have my fingers crossed I die before that day arrives. Political activity these days is picking the poison that kills you the slowest, in an attempt to stave off the disaster for as long as possible out of courtesy for those younger generations we wish the best for.

History has templated how nations and empires collapse quite well. This was predictable and predicted from the beginning of this nation. Bum luck to us all if it happens to be in our lifetime, even worse luck to a future generation if it happens during their lifetime.

Kool Aid, anyone?