Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Why I Won’t Be Voting Democrat in the Upcoming Elections
I’m not particularly socially or politically conservative and, although I’ve been a registered Republican for as long as I could vote, I don’t really identify myself with the stereotypical Republican. I’m not wealthy, I don’t come from an established family, I’m not particularly active in any religion (although I do self-identify as a Christian), and I support a number of things that the “typical” Republican probably doesn’t (gay marriage and drug legalization, for example). I won’t be voting for Democrats this year, though, unlike some others.
As long as people like Michael Moore are treated as serious thinkers by the left, I won’t be voting Democrat.
As long as people like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean occupy positions of authority in the party, I won’t be voting Democrat.
As long as the party marginalizes reasonable people like Joe Lieberman, I won’t be voting Democrat.
As long as Democrats refuse to even acknowledge the growing problem with Social Security--much less offer anything resembling a solution--I won’t be voting Democrat.
As long as Oliver Willis likes a candidate, I can’t imagine myself voting for the person.
Anyone who reads this site or spends a few minutes talking with me will know that I’m not a rah-rah cheerleader of the Republican party. My disappointment on many fronts (Medicare bills, disappointing performance in bringing us smaller government and controlled spending, and a wide range of other issues) doesn’t mean that I’m willing to vote for a bunch of people who promise answers that I’ll like even less.
Like Fouad Ajami, I believe that huge mistakes have been made in the war in Iraq; like Fouad Ajami, I am hardly ready to give up hope nor am I blind to the very real social and political changes that have been simmering through the entirety of the Middle East since the United States turned full attention to the region. Difficult does not necessarily equate to failure; I remain hopeful that the multi-generational commitment to combating radical Islamic terrorists will ultimately make the world a better place.
Iraq is broken, but not irretrievably.
Now, this doesn’t make me right and I’m not criticizing The Commissar’s choice. This is simply my line of reasoning--some of the things that inform my decisions when I’ll be voting in a number of weeks. It also shouldn’t be taken as an attempt to sway any other votes. Every one of us has different priorities and views about the leadership of this country and the idea that any one person could speak for all of us (in a literal sense) is a little foolish.
For a time, I had considered not voting in these elections; I’m rejecting that as being, essentially, a passive vote for the other guys. However disappointed I might be with the GOP, I can’t in good conscience vote wholesale for a party that will take me even further from my priorities. For now, I will stay with the GOP, I will continue to agitate for change from within, and I will hope that the choices we all, collectively, make will lead this country toward a better future.
(H/T to Andy.)
Update: Let’s just say that this is the view from the other side. And another.
Second update: My friend Craig says awfully nice things. Probably too nice, if you want to know the truth. And De Doc adds thoughts on the subject, too.
Another update: Kindly linked by Standfast.
(1)
Comments & Trackbacks
I’m with you. If we had some conservative Democrats - if we had a party of Liebermans - then I would wholeheartedly vote for that slate. Not because they represent my interests better (they don’t) but because it would be possible to give the Republicans the feedback that their performance level is not in the acceptable range, without automatically losing the war and falling back into Carter-esque national impotence.
We can’t afford that, so I’m holding my nose and voting Republican again.
[W]ithout automatically losing the war and falling back into Carter-esque national impotence.
Precisely. And nicely phrased, too.
As long as people like Michael Moore are treated as serious thinkers by the left, I won’t be voting Democrat.
As long as folks like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter are considered serious thinkers of the right, will you be voting republican?
As long as people like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean occupy positions of authority in the party, I won’t be voting Democrat.
As long as people like Hastert are protecting child molesters in positions of power, will you be voting republican?
As long as the party marginalizes reasonable people like Joe Lieberman, I won’t be voting Democrat.
As long as the party maginalizes and swiftboats people like Max Cleland, will you be voting republican?
Good luck with all that.
First, I’ll take both Limbaugh and Coulter over Moore if I were forced to choose. That isn’t so much a defense of them as it is an indictment of him.
Second, Hastert was protecting a child molestor? Wow, I hadn’t actually heard of any molestation--not that it would surprise me, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of actual molestation. As to what Hastert knew and whether I think he deserves to keep his job, I’ll address that as more evidence becomes available.
If you’ll go back and read the post I wrote when the Foley story broke, though, I think that you will agree that it leaves little question about what I think about Foley and the GOP leadership.
I’m not sure what you consider constitutes “swiftboating”, so I’ll just leave that alone and say that while I respect what Cleland did in service, I still disagree with his politics.
And, finally, good job at missing the entire point of this post: that Democrats do not represent my best interests and, without making excuses for Republican mistakes, the GOP is still closer to my beliefs than the Democrats could possibly manage.
Thanks for dropping by.
Actually, I take part of that back. In the strictest sense, Foley did molest the kids on the other end of the emails and IMs. He did make “indecent sexual advances.”
Cleland was a Democrat, and a liberal one completely out of step with his constituents in Georgia. He wasn’t “swiftboated,” he was defeated for a second term after Georgia voters saw what he was doing with the trust they’d given him six years before.
I’m getting a distinct impression of Shane C. Mason as not all that serious a thinker.
McGehee, thanks for the personal attack, that puts your critical thinking skills way up there, I am sure. Appreciate the chance for honest dialog.
Otto von Bismark famously said, “Politics is the art of the possible.” The people I would like to see run aren’t running or can’t win, but this isn’t a reason to let other people pick who should represent me. I’ll vote for the people who least-imperfectly represent my views, even if their imperfection is even more manifest than usual.
I’ll be voting Republican; the Democrats are an embarrassment. (Yes, even by comparison to Foley.)
You and I sail in the same political boat. Now to find a way to explain to my uber lefty friends all that you have stated in this blog without being told I am coming across a hypocrite.
It is true Republicans CAN support things like gay marriage, drug legalization and cleaning up the enviroment.
I had a conversation with a good friend that turned, oddly enough, to politics and we were lamenting the general state of affairs in politics today. I’ve said it repeatedly; there’s no such thing as a small-government, strong defense, low tax party any more.
McGehee, Shane’s a good guy. Hell, I think you might even like to drink beers with the guy. And I base that on personal experience.
Shane, I started out by correcting you on Cleland, which I think your error should have been avoidable if you were interested in accuracy. I do tend to judge people’s critical thinking skills based on what they say. I’m sorry if it stung, but I live in Georgia, was here for that campaign, and your inaccuracy about Cleland stung me. Open and honest dialog, anyone? That’s what we’re having right now, as a matter of fact.
I’ll take Craig’s opinion, since I trust him. But I don’t respect talking points masquerading as “dialog.”