The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

9 May 2004

The truly right stuff

This week in Vent #388: "Wouldn't you really rather be a Republican?"

In a word: no.

Posted at 5:43 PM to Political Science Fiction


Well, I certainly don't want to be a Democrat -- not the way they are acting now. Maybe when they climb down off the ceiling I'll think about rejoining. And -- I don't run screaming from the room when gay people enter. Many Republicans don't. If it makes you feel better, I think the whole marriage/gay/rights/shriek thing is sheer foolishness, but rightwingers aren't the only ones who have been fools about it.

Quite frankly I think the "revolutionary fervor" is evident in both parties, just about different things. I don't care for it either. On the other hand, what are the "long-established institutions" Nielsen-Hayden is talking about here? Do they start with "W"?* Just because some institution has been "long-established" doesn't mean it's good. Communism in Eastern Europe was long established. Should we have just let it alone? The monarchy was long-established -- should the American colonists not have fought against a King who really wasn't all that bad according to many historical accounts?

Be whatever you want to be when it comes to political parties -- just leave the sweeping generalizations out of your decision.

*Welfare.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at 6:12 PM on 9 May 2004

I have no doubt that Nielsen Hayden, a gentleman of generally impeccable lefty credentials, meant to include welfare in his list of sacrosanct institutions. And really, I don't have a problem being hard-assed about it; the brief period I spent on relief in a blue state which shall remain nameless demonstrated pretty clearly to me that this was no way to live a life.

And it's not like I've never been chastised for lack of fervor before. A chap from the state Libertarian party gave me whatfor this weekend for my apparently inexplicable failure to demand that states and cities stop giving tax incentives and such to businesses, despite the fact that I thought it would be a good idea if they did.

Meanwhile, there are undoubtedly Democrats (no doubt Angelic Bruce is reading this) who are ready to read me out of the party for my lack of enthusiasm for their ostensible Presidential candidate. I honestly believe some of them would vote for a marmoset, were it old enough, simply because it's Not Bush. (Ralph Nader, of course, is far more Not Bush than John Kerry ever thought of being, but that's another matter.)

If Bill Quick and friends are correct and the Democrats implode once the election is over, somebody's going to have to remain behind to turn off the lights. Maybe that's reason enough to stay on the D side of the ledger.

Posted by: CGHill at 7:27 PM on 9 May 2004

But I'm not chastising you for your lack of fervor. I'm probably much more apathetic on matters political than you. I'm not even chastising you -- I'm just pointing out that there are a whole lot of reasons to belong to a political party. You notice I didn't call you a Moonbat or a Commie for being a Democrat; I'd like to think that I am not going to be called a gay-hater, or a Brown-Person™-barbecuer because some people who are fools also have an "R" on their voters' registration card.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at 8:07 PM on 9 May 2004

And I forgot -- when it comes to things like welfare, I find myself having to tell people that no, I don't think illegitimate babies should be exposed at birth and poor people should be imprisoned when I say I think the welfare system as we now have it has lots of problems and is, as you said, no way to live. I do believe that one of the few good things Clinton accomplished were some tiny reforms he applied to this behemoth. But I think that some people (naming no names) would like to make these (and other problematic government programs) systems as they are now immovable and immutable -- so that the idea of change and reform will get the same amazed response as people who advocate tearing up the interstate highway system and going back to using barter as the basis of our economy.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at 8:11 PM on 9 May 2004

What is this assumption that I am a democrat?

Sheesh, its as if there is only R or D to choose from. I personally get sick in my stomach when people of the two parties simply refuse to put aside their partisan goals even when it becomes obvious that its makes them look like lying idiots.

I dont think there is any good reason to hold your tongue regarding a person's idiocy just because you belong to their party. I wish more people would declare themselves independent.

I know it looks like I'm a Dem, but it only seems that way because I find so much of the GOP positions to be void of reason and conscience. I like that the Dems cant seem to agree with each other. Its more endearing than the corporate (did you get the morning memo?) conformity of the GOP.

There is so much about the GOP that I can't stand, but I am simply not willing to put aside my objectivity by throwing my hat in with the Dems.

Posted by: bruce at 12:28 AM on 10 May 2004

There, there, bruce. You may rest assured that I, at least, wouldn't call you a Democrat. ;-)

Posted by: McGehee at 8:23 AM on 12 May 2004