TheAgitator.com
Biden
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008Had to take a break from my vacation to register my disappointment in Obama’s selection of Biden.
I understand the rationale–Obama wants an attack dog to go after McCain while he appears to be above the fray. Biden also adds some foreign policy and Beltway heft to the ticket. The Beltway CW says this pick was safe, but not particularly bold. I think that’s about right.
But from a policy perspective, it’s a disaster. Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? Thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act.
Biden does appear to have eased up a bit in the last couple years, including taking a fairly strong position against federal raids on medical marijuana clinics (though he still opposes making marijuana available for medicinal purposes). But that’s little consolation for all the damage he’s done over the years.
Biden’s record on other criminal justice and civil liberties issues is just as bad. Opponents of the federalization of crime might note that the 1994 crime bill he sponsored created several new federal capital offenses. Biden also wants to expand federal penalties for hate crimes. He supports a federal smoking ban. His position on the federal drinking age is, and I quote, “absolutely do not” lower it to 18. He believes “most violent crime is related to drugs” (if he had said “drug prohibition,” he’d be closer to the truth). Biden also has an almost perfect anti-gun voting record. He said last year he favors “universal national service,” either in the Peace Corps or the military. Sounds like conscription to me. He says he’s opposed to the PATRIOT Act, but he voted for both the original bill and its re-authorization in 2005.
Foreign policy? Biden voted for the war on Iraq. Yes, he’s opposed to it now (and I like the partition plan he pushed in the primaries). But he didn’t vote correctly when it counted most. Biden also voted to send troops into Darfur. He wants to enlarge NATO. He voted in favor of the air strikes in Kosovo. He voted to strengthen the trade embargo against Cuba. His seems to be a meddling, interventionist, Clinton-esque foreign policy. His first instinct seems to be that the U.S. military’s objective include some vague notion of “doing good in the world.” Never mind the disastrous consequences that notion has reaped over the years.
I obviously disagree with Biden on a host of economic and regulatory issues, too (though he does seem to be fairly decent on free trade). But that’s to be expected. My problem with Biden is that he’s not even good on the issues the left is supposed to be good on. He’s an overly ambitious, elitist, tunnel-visioned, Potomac-fevered Beltway dinosaur, with all the trappings. He may well have been the worst possible pick among congressional Democrats when it comes to the drug war and criminal justice.
Your humble Agitator predicted the Biden pick last February. It was a prediction made mostly from cynicism. I wish I had been wrong.
On principle, Obama stumbles badly, here. I guess we’ll have to wait to see how it plays out on the electoral map.
Yeah, not too happy about this choice either. . .
On the other hand, Radley, if Biden is elected Veep, this gets him out of the Senate, where he has real power.
You forgot his sponsorship of VAWA (sexist by its very name) and its sibling IMBRA.
[...] AOTP, I discover Biden has an 82% rating from the ACLU. But Radley Balko suggests the ACLU are easy graders: But from a policy perspective, it’s a disaster. Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war [...]
He also supported DOMA and the federal ant-gay marriage amendment. But like Mike said, it’d get him out of a position where he has any real power.
Although I think the only reason he’d want the VP job is to run for president in 8 years. Or maybe he’s hoping for an assassination.
“On principle, Obama stumbles badly, here.”
You know what, Radley? I think you do good work here at the blog, but you’re never ever in your life going to enjoy my respect. Never. Now, that might not matter to you, but it’s important to me.
I have a question which might illustrate for you what I’m talking about:
What the fuck did you — do you — expect from these assholes?
I once told you in e-mail that your problem is Washington D.C.
If you had a brain in your head, you would move someplace half-civilized.
{hah!} I expect every single one of you to vote that comment down. I should have said that when I wrote it.
You might think about this, though: you people are the only ones who could possibly disappoint me. I don’t have a thing in the world invested in these various shit-heel creeps that all of you are going to vote for. I only wish that you people were better than you are.
And still: I will never submit your rights to a vote.
I’m not like you.
“I’m not like you.”
Thankyou.
This is going to be a Nixon-McGovern landslide for McCain.
Obama would have been better off selecting the corpse of Che Guevara for veep — at least that would hold his base together.
Ed Driscoll is all over it.
I think you do good work here at the blog, but you’re never ever in your life going to enjoy my respect.
As if Billy’s respect is something someone could “enjoy.” Hilarious!
That’s nice, Claude. Very snippy. A guaranteed laugh around the bar.
I do not believe that, if you really thought about it all, you could do no better than that.
Agreed, but how can one evaluate the tradeoff between electable evil and someone who is less well known/electable but supports sounder policy?
A guaranteed laugh around the bar.
That explains a lot.
In other words, Biden is a pure, unadulterated Fascist, and proves that Obama is probably one too.
The ONLY candidate that had the balls to stop the drug war was Ron Paul.
Biden, a fascist? That’s the republicants.
The choice is between fascism and socialism.
“if Biden is elected Veep, this gets him out of the Senate”
You might want to think about that again.
As much as I am against Obama and his policies, I was kind of looking forward to someone with a different approach in the White House this go around. With the announcement of Kinnock - errr, Biden, it looks like more of the same headed our way. That said, if I were one to participate in the illusion of choice, I would vote for Obama/Biden over McCain/?? simply because I think (hope, mostly) Obama will do his best to get us the fuck out of Iraq. McCain will let us linger there and continue losing our fine young men and women over a petty tyrant’s gamble for the foreseeable future.
The way I figure it, if Obama wins and if he brings the troops home and does very little else, he is leaps and bounds ahead of George W. Douche as a president. Hell, Warren G. Harding was leaps and bounds ahead of Bush but I digress . . .
The ONLY candidate that had the balls to stop the drug war was Ron Paul.
GOOGLE RON PAUL!
I think we can safely assume that everyone here knows who Ron Paul is.
Policy aside, it was also a bad pick tactically. Kaine and Bayh are stiffs, but at least Obama would have been guaranteed a win in Indiana or Virginia. he’s going to have to keep everything Kerry won plus pick up a couple of states to win this and picking Biden didn’t do anything to increase his odds anywhere that matters.
so why didn’t b.h.o. pick a ‘black’ veep?
he left us homeys that supported him all these years in the dust…
for a lily-white power cartel of which biden is the epitome.
the only change we need is to go from ‘unca tom’ to ‘unca bo’,
we been ’shafted’ once again, rip isaac.
You all should go to Billy Beck’s website and look at his picture. If he wasn’t such a narcissistic dick, I’d never point it out, but that is one fugly ass SOB.
Also, Jim Webb seemed like the most obvious VP pick of my lifetime. Unless he refused, I can’t imagine think of one advantage Biden has.
Bayh would have been a good pick because he was a governor, but every democrat I’ve met while living in the hoosier state have bad words for Bayh. And I worked in the state government there, so I met quite a few dems. I think your analysis is plausible, but the conclusion improbable. no way he could deliver anything but a few extra votes.
I thought Webb would have been Obama’s best pick, followed by Biden.
If Hilary’s followers throw this election to McCain and we get another 8 years of Bush II, there’s going to be a bloodbath in that party.
[...] and Biden are surely the better of these two options does not count for much: as Radley Balko has put it in connection with the latter’s history of drug-warring, these are the issues that the Left [...]
The early reports were Bayh and I thought he would have been the best pick for the big O. I guess Obama wanted someone else who had (almost) as much of a God-complex and was as gaffe-prone as him instead. Watch the polls just get better for McCain. Then again if McCain makes an equally stupid pick like Romney … who knows.
Ad hominem Alex: You all should go to Billy Beck’s website and look at his picture. If he wasn’t such a narcissistic dick, I’d never point it out, but that is one fugly ass SOB.
Here’s the link.
Now let’s see a link to your no doubt Zeppish physique, Alex.
(I mean, if we’re evading, with concerted purpose, principled thought and all that other horrible stuff that adults do.)
Curiously, there’s been no mention so far of the fact that Biden being a good or bad pick, depends on whether you want Obama to win, or not.
I’m conflicted, since I want Obama and McCain to lose.
Now the burden is on McCain to pick someone less horrendous than Biden.
Obama/Biden leaves a hole wide nuff for a Mack Truck but only with Sarah Palin as the driver!
biden wont lose his power in the senate as vp he will actually then preside over it and have the tie breaking vote. Silly Internet.
“Ad hominem Alex”
What is ad hominem? The only way that makes sense is if I made an arguement, which I didn’t. I noticed that douchebag’s website a long time ago but just never mentioned it. I saw these comments and couldn’t help myself. What of it?
“Now let’s see a link to your no doubt Zeppish physique, Alex.”
I would rather comment honestly and anonymously, but I’ve been told I look like an uglier John Mayer and a white Ludachris. I’m not really sure who either of those two are, but I’ve heard each at least a few times. I don’t see how it really matters anyway because Billy Beck looks like a guy in a van parked next to a playground, and I assume all the other commenters look much less fugly/creepy than that.
Take this quote from Billy: “I don’t have a thing in the world invested in these various shit-heel creeps that all of you are going to vote for. I only wish that you people were better than you are.”
Why would you spend 1 second defending this asshole? Also, I assume you haven’t read any of his comments or his website. You should because he reads like a retarded WFB. In connection with his picture, it’s quite hilarious.
[...] my time Sunday morning Balko pops in from vacation to point out Joe’s horrific record on drugs and civil liberties. He ends with [...]
“On principle, Obama stumbles badly, here.”
Is it really possible to use “principle” and “Obama” in the same sentence? Or for that matter “principle” and “Balko’s guest bloggers”? Nice to have you back, even if (or because) you’re the guy enumerating the coliform count of the turd in the punchbowl (Biden) while everyone else is just laughing about it.
[...] can express it better than Balko! The Agitator
Or for that matter “principle” and “Balko’s guest bloggers”?
So, what, exactly, have the guest bloggers written to make you conclude that they have no principles?
[...] Radley Balko (”The Agitator”), libertarian — disappointed, points to Biden’s support for key measures in the “war on drugs,” the Iraq war (initially), for interventionism generally (Kosovo, Darfur), and for expanding the list of death penalty offenses. “He’s an overly ambitious, elitist, tunnel-visioned, Potomac-fevered Beltway dinosaur, with all the trappings. He may well have been the worst possible pick among congressional Democrats when it comes to the drug war and criminal justice.” (Via Jim Henley, who reports that on the other hand, Biden has an 82% ACLU rating.) [...]
What the fuck does Billy’s appearance have to do with anything? I don’t agree with his comments in this thread so much so should I blast how he looks? When you bring that into your argument against him, you lose some credibility. Come on man, you didn’t need to do that. He crucified himself practically.
“When you bring that into your argument against him, you lose some credibility.”
What arguement against him? I’m pointing out that he looks really f’d up, and I can feel safe doing that because he’s such a useless asshole. What’s the point of the internet if we can’t make fun of people. Sure his head looks like a skeleton, but he chose the 80’s silk shirt and gold chains. It looks like he also has a bald guy pony tail. If so, this is gold. I go weeks without seeing people that look this pitiful in real life. Like I said, if the guy was mentally challenged, I wouldn’t say anything, but he’s a shit talking dumbass that looks funny as hell.
Really, what’s the point of the internet if not to look at funny pictures of hillbillies?
right on alex. he’s just a big doody head.
your mom.
Please elevate the discourse before the comments disappear again.
Biden is also a seething hatred for the Second Amendment and gun owners in particular. Actually I take that back, gun owners who are federal, state or politically connected or protecting his senatorial ass he’s pretty much cool with. The rest of you he hates and wants to do bad things to you.
He fits in with Obama quite well in that respect.
Despite the Dems and the allied main stream media’s desperation to see Romney as McCain’s Veep, Mitt is clearly out, with (1) Obama doubling down on the class warfare theme (McCain’s 7 houses) and (2) McCain doubling down with ads showing the hypocrisy of Biden attacking Obama in the primaries — Romney did way more than that contra McCain.
This leaves only Govs Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty. Pro-abortion Ridge and Dem-Lieberman were never real considerations, despite relentless media goading. Pawlenty’s lackluster TV performances, coupled with Palin pizzazz, the primacy of oil drilling and the ticked off women/Hillary voters, does now portend a McCain/Palin checkmate on the Dems. This is so albeit the Dems and liberal media dare not mention Palin’s name, that is, everyone but…..
And if there’s any question as to Palin being uniquely positioned and able to more than nullify Biden in debate, see the excellent discussion at palinforvp.blogspot.com
Team McCain, well done!!!
seeing the good liberal’s dismay at obama’s bidness-as-usual choice of biden is good for the spirit. it’s a little like stumbling on a 13-year-old girl, crying her brokenhearted eyes out at discovering that her latest crush is a cad just like all the rest.
“…but i thought he was DIFFerent, daddy! he *SAID* he was different!”
of course, the difference is that here, it’s ok to point out “WTF did you think was gonna happen? did you REALLY think a hugely arrogant racist lowlife corrupt chicago machine pol was gonna turn out to be a knight in shining armor? have you not been paying attention? or did you maybe just *refuse to think about* the stories of obama winning his first election by removing his challengers from the ballot? etc etc”
think carter’s grinning marxist incompetence, only without carter’s rudimentary personal morals. *nice* pick there, barry! was robert byrd too busy to be VP? daley didn’t want to take the pay cut? mugabe had scheduling conflicts?
[...] Agitator vs. Biden Radley Balko doesn’t like Biden. [...]
“…but that is one fugly ass SOB.”
Nobody is ever going to get me to compromise your rights, Alex.
Ps. — They’re silver, and I’ve been wearing them longer than you’ve been alive, son. I don’t don’t wear gold, and I never have.
[...] and Ohio and Michigan, being an attack dog, etc. etc. – Radly Balko helpfully points out one ridiculously under-discussed aspect of the choice of Sen. Joe Biden to be Obama’s VP nominee … his illustrious career the [...]
Out in the big, wide world; Biden doesn’t look anything more than the same old, same old, when it comes to veeps.
[...] The Agitator » Blog Archive » Biden But from a policy perspective, it’s a disaster. Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? Thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act. [...]
It’s not about what looks good to Balko. It’s about what will help Obama.
I thing you make too many assumptions about what the Left is supposed to be good on and I doubt that any of these issues matter to Democrats or voters in general.
Yeah, The Left is supposed to be good on civil liberties. The Right is supposed to be great on spending and small government. But the the supposed to has nothing to do with reality for either.
The reality is most Democrats are just as bad on civil liberties as Republicans. Most people in general are sheep who buy the whole” drugs are bad..must destroy drug users” and every legislation is acceptable because it’s ” for the children” ideas.
A large % of people think the things that happened to Cory Maye, Ryan Frederick, Derrick Foster, and everyone else are acceptable, that police are always right, government is good, and “civil liberties don’t matter if you are dead.”
Voters are overwhelmingly statist and hate America.
“I was kind of looking forward to someone with a different approach in the White House this go around”
The denizens of the White House all have, have always had, and always will have, the same “approach”: impose themselves upon your life, with or without your consent.
[...] August, 2008 · No Comments Radley Balko has some worries about Biden that I hadn’t heard before. Back when I tended to prefer Edwards, an article about [...]
did you REALLY think a hugely arrogant racist lowlife corrupt chicago machine pol was gonna turn out to be a knight in shining armor?
No, but it’s hilarious that you think we did. Thanks for such a thoughtful response!
SUper-peppy response there, les! thanks so much for enlightening us! did you have any thoughtful analysis as to how the selection of an obnoxious, arrogant, none-too-bright, racist, mendacious, 35-year senator from a democrat machine state might square with the campaign’s stated policy of hopey change?
i mean, cause, y’know, selecting biden LOOKS like the act of a cynical, seniority-based, samo samo bidness as usual corrupt chicago politician.
or is that not thoughtful enough?
[...] work, though, I’ll leave you in the capable hands of Jonathan Schwarz, Dennis Perrin, and Radley Balko (who I don’t read regularly, but whose commentary on Biden and the “Drug War” [...]
The denizens of the White House all have, have always had, and always will have, the same “approach”: impose themselves upon your life, with or without your consent.
Very true. But one can still be a bit naive about such things and hope for the best from time to time. Can’t they? Hope springs eternal, yes? Ah, never mind. You are correct, of course, good sir. I suppose I’ll just wait for the beginning of next baseball season to employ such thought.
“But one can still be a bit naive about such things and hope for the best from time to time.”
When you hope against nature of a thing, that’s not “naive”. It’s not remotely charming to even try to cop that. It’s fucking disgusting.
Radley–great criticism of Biden all around, but clearly the drug war is not an issue in this election. Even the Libertarians have nominated a (somewhat reformed) drug warrior, fer chrissake.
If one wants to vote their position on the drug war, the only remotely sensible choice is to vote with their feet.
The more things seem to “CHANGE “,the more they obviously stay the same. Our ship of state…the Titanic. Silly, party voters.
You also predicted McCain would choose Lieberman.
I so hope you are right on that one too.
Kind of blows Obama’s promises of change doesn’t it? Looks like business as usual over at the DNC. I wonder if McCain is smart enough to take advantage of this turn of events?
xyz123,
Your hyperbole diminishes any legitimate message you might have (Carter was a Marxist? Mugabe? Really?) . I don’t know who around here actually thinks Obama is everything he and his supporters say he is. I certainly don’t know of anyone here who thought he was going to be turn out to be “a knight in shining armor.”
And could you please provide some evidence of his being a racist, thank you.
When you hope against nature of a thing, that’s not “naive”. It’s not remotely charming to even try to cop that. It’s fucking disgusting.
Man, I thought I was cynical. And just so you know, Billy: I wouldn’t let anyone compromise your rights, either. Even when you’re acting like an asshole. Hell, especially because you are.
I’m disgusted by the way things are, too. I just choose not to act misanthropic and hopeless all the time because my blood pressure can’t handle it. But mostly because I think it’s a pretty shitty way to live; feeling like you’re overly oppressed. Even if you are. I wouldn’t know how to walk with that much weight on my goddamned shoulders.
Because I would like things to be different doesn’t mean I am not wise to the fact that it is pretty much impossible that they ever will be. I can choose to be pessimistic and live a fairly miserable existence in the process or I can take what they give me and work with it to my advantage.
In other words, I know things are fucked. But I won’t let that beat me down to the point where I’m so depressed and can fight no longer in word, deed or thought. I’ll fight them with a smile on my face.
Good day, sir.
What I pointed out is not cynicism. It’s an indictment of delusion.
And I am never going to be a “happy warrior”. Fuck that bullshit. At its root, it’s a goddamned lie.
LOL, dude . . . I doubt I would ever live to see the day with you as a happy warrior. If I did, I’d start wondering if the end of the world were nigh. I’m sorry you seem to have read so much into my little comment regarding naivete. I am not delusional and perhaps I expressed myself improperly and for that I am sure I deserve your ‘indictment’ as it were. However, I do think that you are quite cynical. I know I am. We just express our disappointments quite differently. At the root, we probably have more in common than you may care to admit. There are many times where I have read something you wrote and said, “Yup, he gets it.” Now with your comments to me, I doubt you would say that about much I have written but there it is. Just know I respect most of what you have to say and agree with a good percentage of it . . . so much so that I felt compelled to speak out about the ridiculous comment on your appearance. I know you don’t need my help in defending yourself or even that you needed defending so much as that that annoyed me. I hate it when people pull that crap.
“However, I do think that you are quite cynical.”
I don’t think that word means what you think it does. A good clue to this would be the second sentence that one of yours. “Disappointment” is a very different thing, even accounting for the full depth and breadth of it in my case. I’ve written this before and you might not have seen it, but it’s a key: I remember America, and I’m going to miss it for the rest of my life.
“At the root, we probably have more in common than you may care to admit.”
No, sir. You’re wrong about that. Look: I’ve noticed you here. I know what you’re talking about and agree. Where you’re wrong is in what I would “admit”. Facts are immutable to me.
I will not give up my dispute of what you said. When I first wrote it, I dropped a word so I’m going to write it again:
When you hope against the nature of a thing, that’s not “naive”.
Hope without reason for it is simply delusional. You might as well throw salt over your left shoulder, like the epistemic savages of old, who are now making a thorough comeback. You’re hoping that the tiger won’t eat you, without accounting for what it is, in reality.
There is nothing “cynical” in this.
Another thought:
I’m actually pleased that you brought this up, Danno.
I think I now have a new principle of online operations: my job is to do everything I can to ruthlessly shatter hope without reason.
When I set up my blog, my very first post (”Weblog Precepts”) announced that I would not be a constructive critic. (The truth: I stole that from H. L. Mencken.)
I know what I’m doing, and what I’m talking about. I never got into any this in order to make friends, and I don’t care whether anyone likes it or not.
[...] friends, and I don
Not to get into a pissing contest here but I am well aware of what the definition of cynical is. Key there was ‘I think’ you are cynical. Maybe I am wrong. In your mind, I definitely am. In my mind, I read what I read from you and see cynicism. It’s kind of like your summation of my comments using the word disgusting. I hardly believe everyone would agree with you that what I said was disgusting (karma notwithstanding) - it’s all in the eye of the beholder when it comes to that. There are no facts that you have to support what you said seeing as my comment was really put down without a great deal of thought and probably should have been dismissed offhand by anyone reading it. Which is probably good advice for the majority of what I post here, anyway. But you didn’t. You read into it far more than was there and then proceeded to insult me. That’s fine; I’m a big boy and can handle it. I have no control over your perception any more than you have control over mine. If your perception of my comment is ‘it’s disgusting’, then that’s your opinion but not immutable fact.
The facts are that you don’t know what I was truly trying to convey with the ‘naïve’ comment. Truth be told, it was more of a segue to what I said about baseball immediately. I’ve said this here before . . . only I know what I am talking about a good portion of the time and sometimes my fingers and brain move in unison with little regard for what is being transcribed - disconnect between brain and tongue (in this case, keyboard) to muddle over thought to word the thought does not always exist for me. Now perhaps that does not make me appear too wise or educated or whatever the fuck. I really don’t care. I say what I think I need to at the time and that’s that. I’ll own up (and have) to any realmistakes I make after the fact. The case for true humility demands nothing less.
As far as the rest is concerned, have it your way.
“…it’s all in the eye of the beholder when it comes to that.”
True.
Somewhere in the corpus, Ayn Rand once said that ethics was the most important philosophical study of our time, and you just made that point. The question here is what to value, and my principle is reality.
“If your perception of my comment is ‘it’s disgusting’, then that’s your opinion but not immutable fact.”
Well, it is in my case: that’s my ethical response to it. It’s regrettable if you find that insulting, but that’s your affair and there is nothing I can do about it.
Let me draw out an implication:
“The question here is what to value, and my principle is reality.”
This brings me back to the top:
It is the height of folly to invest anything in Obama or McCain, and I say that anyone remotely disappointed in either of them deserves everything they get in the next four years.
Like I told Jim Henley last night: I’ll see you under the next administration.
Let me get this straight before I comment further - you are saying that what you said to me regarding the naive comment is factual to you because it’s your ethical response? Yeah, I’m paraphrasing what you already said - but I have my reasons for asking for your clarification.
Forget it, you have clarified enough for me in your post directly after. I think we (at least I am) are getting caught up in the details.
I couldn’t agree with you more about deserving what one gets. And as far as being disgusted with my comment, that’s just fine. Now that I see how you viewed it, I am disgusted with it, too.
A pox on my household!
Seriously, you have no idea how much what you said resonates with me. I think we just have different ways of expressing ourselves.
Good day, sir.
People often justify voting “for the lesser of two evils”, as if that’s a good thing. And such folks will often say “if you don’t vote, then you have no right to object…” or “you didn’t do what you could, so…” or some other such prattle. Some folks justify voting as self-defense.
And it’s all nonsense.
A vote is nothing more and always an attempt to push someone else around by electing a proxy to do the pushing.
The only question is whether you end up on what’s called “the winning side”…for a time. Either way, by voting you keep the whole corrupt game in play.
And the winning thugs get to claim a “mandate”.
“A pox on my household!”
Hush.
I told you that I’d noticed you here. I have good reasons for that.
“A vote is nothing more and always an attempt to push someone else around by electing a proxy to do the pushing.”
Yup. Voting voting is delegated coercion.
It’s also a despicably cowardly act. No one I’ve ever met has the audacity to personally do to their neighbors what a vote-fueled government does.
Ron Good -
Perhaps you or Billy can set me straight on this, but my impression is this: you object to voting because (a) the guy who is ultimately elected is absolutely invariably going to sign off on mass coercion and (b) voting for anyone who would take that office would merely legitimate his supposed “authority” to do the indefensible.
I won’t argue against (a). It’s quite evident. But if you’re looking at the eventual president-elect as the enemy general, why not take the opportunity to choose him?
I understand the argument that it legitimates their authority to go along with the system, but what makes you think so? Voting for someone today doesn’t mean you can’t go back to snubbing him the next day. A politician doesn’t really care if only 40-odd percent of the eligible public votes, as long as a plurality of that minority votes for him. Ask Bill Clinton. When Joe Public pays attention long enough to ask why so many people aren’t voting, he’s going to hear (correctly) that the vast majority of that is apathy and ignorance. Your principled stand against voting is, for anyone who isn’t reading your net comments, an ambiguous signal swamped by even more noise than if you actually voted. Nobody studies your non-vote and takes that as a signal that they might be doing something wrong; if they take it to mean anything, it’s that they need to motivate more of the ignorant/apathetic sort. If you vote, you send a clearer signal — to everyone who will act on that information — about who’s less tolerable. (And I know you can sort your values well enough to make a good guess at who’s the more destructive.) Isn’t it true and widely perceived that most voters today are voting against the other guy rather than for “their” candidate? I.e., “I have a lot of problems with Candidate A but Candidate B scares the hell out of me.” The fact that “the lesser of two evils” is such a cliche suggests that it is.
Even if you don’t participate in any other government function, you should vote. Again, picking the enemy general has its obvious advantages. You might think you’re playing a deeper game by withdrawing your stamp of approval, but unless you have some more compelling argument (and I’m listening, sincerely), voting looks pretty good to me.