Replies

Volunbeer's post was extremely good, and I understand what he is saying. Democracy is supposed to work like this. There is no way that any of us can ever find the perfect candidate who believes in exactly everything that we do (unless you stand for office yourself!) if only because the range of topics we can argue over is so vast. Therefore compromise is always essential in these matters. You find and support the candidate who is the best fit, and if said candidate gets knocked out, then you move to the next one, and so on.

Unfortunately, in the last few years this process has meant that Republicans end up with the likes of McCain and (probably) Romney, both of whom hold viewpoints utterly repugnant to most folk on this site. The problem is that the puppetmasters who run the GOP KNOW that most Conservatives, being good and honest citizens, will follow that process, and therefore they can foist these candidates onto the ticket. And that is true - of all the political groupings in the world, Conservatives are by far the least likely to indulge in "tactical voting".

What Jim Robinson and others are saying is that the entire political process has now reached the point whereby this 'voting for best fit candidate' idea is just ensuring the continual election of wishy-washy republicans whose policies and beliefs differ from those of radical democrats only in emphasis, not substance. In other words, the game is now rigged, and the only way left to win is to refuse to play it, or at least no longer to play it by the rules the elites have in force. More succintly, in the words of the old joke, "don't vote, it only encourages them!"

And if you think about it, is Mittens really a better choice than Obama? Give the devil his due, Obama is totally up front about his policies. OTOH, Romney will say he is a conservative, and say he will uphold Conservative values, and then do pretty much the same as Obama. In my view that makes him potentially much more dangerous.

Like Volunbeer, I'm devestated that it has come to this. I really wish it had not. In fact, I think if anything I'm more pessimistic than he is. I think things are going to get a great deal worse before they start to get better (if they ever do). But, in all humility to MacMattico and Volunbeer, what exactly are the alternatives? As far as I can make out, they amount to "do you want two plus two to equal four", or "are you going with two times two equals four"?

The real answer surely is "actually I'd like to do quadratic equations. I know they're kind of hard and not everyone will get it, but frankly I'm sick of your people-pleasing, paint-by-numbers, populist, simplistic answers. This country faces really hard choices and decisions that will significantly effect all americans, and their descendents, and the rest of the world too, and I'd like someone at the helm who has the guts to make them, even if they may be unpopular at the time."

So, even though it goes against the grain of what Conservatives naturally would like to do, I think JR might very well be right. Its sad it has come to this, but there you go. In the end, brain has to rule over heart.