Another political post

[womzilla]

Not that I'm likely to convince anyone of anything; with the exception of nigelpuggle (who is, after all, a dog), I think that everyone who reads this journal already agrees with me on the importance of defeating the Republicans, at every level, in November.

None the less. Here's an excellent paragraph from an excellent essay on the Republican party as it has conducted itself for the last 20-something years. I present it in the hopes that if someone needs an excellent paragraph on what's facing us, they might have it available:

It is, frankly, foolishness at this point in time to even vote for a Republican. Not because the party lacks candidates who are utterly unworthy of support; there are, indeed, smart, thoughtful and honest Republicans even still, though they are harder to come by. But even they represent, and remain an integral part of, a party that has become nearly absolutely corrupted by its near-absolute power, and almost permanently tainted by its lust for utter control of the political and social landscape.

It used to be possible to be an honest Republican politician. I don't think it is any more. By agreeing to take the label "Republican", a politician is taking the whole burden--everything from lying about greenhouse gasses to supporting the Patriot Act. The Republican/Democrat divide is no longer a matter of differing views of how to run America; it's a divide over whether there is to be a government of the people or of the entrenched elites.

Comments

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Not to be defeatist or anything, but, aren't the Democrats mostly entrenched elites too?

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

When I said "entrenched elites", I was mostly thinking of "servants of corporate wealth". While there are many Democrats who suck gladly at the corporate teat, I think there is a difference between the two parties on that score. Yes, John Kerry takes corporate PAC money. George Rutherford Bush takes, literally, ten times as much. That's a difference of degree which becomes a difference of kind.

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

To some extent, yes. But I think the point is that the Democrats don't seem to be as eager to stop out the Republicans (and Greens), while the vocal Republicans remind me strongly of the worst of the radical leftist movements of the late `60s and early `70s - the same "we are the only Truth" attitude. And this seems to be why some old time conservative writers are calling the current GOP "Stalinist" or "Trotskyite".

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Some of the neoconservatives were Trotskyites.

[nigelpuggle.livejournal.com]

As a dog, my aim is to please everyone, so I agree with all of you! Besides, dogs don't have the vote yet...except in certain big cities.

[ookpik.livejournal.com]

I think that everyone who reads this journal already agrees with me on the importance of defeating the Republicans, at every level, in November.

I really,really wish you had spent some time in the con suite (at Lunacon). I was volunteering, and spent much time in the kitchen preparing food, forced to listen to the "anti-anti-Bush" libertarians loudly dissing liberals and talking about how of course they were going to vote Republican in November and on and on...with nobody apparently dissenting. Sigh.

[wouldyoueva.livejournal.com]

That would have meant attending Lunacon, which I hear has become a real snore. Maybe to be anti-Bush is to be sensible, and that means skipping bad cons. (But too bad, my DH Jack would have had a fine time arguing with the libartarians there.)

But what part of the Patriot Act could a thinking libertarian actually endorse?

Generally, it's hard to argue with types like this because they won't let you get a word in.