« Ohiovania and Pennsylhio
2nd UPDATE: Still not 10 »



The Government You Deserve

April 23rd, 2008
By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor


A smart person once said we all get the government we deserve. This applies not only to western, democratic nations who hold elections, but even to tyrannies. If a tyrant is truly hated by his subjects, they will eventually rise up behind a populist leader and either depose him or force the government to bend to their will. If they fail to do so, then it is in their nature to be so ruled. The case is more clear in democracies. If you are led by dishonest people of poor quality, those are the sort of people you chose for yourself. This, of course, brings us back to the American elections.

As I previously predicted, the long anticipated Pennsylvania primary has come and gone, and nothing much has changed. Senator Clinton keeps her campaign on life support long enough to limp into North Carolina and Indiana, while the total numbers in the race shift very little. One other thing which is not changing is the persistent attitude of many among each of their supporters about the opposing candidate. 23% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters and 18% of Obama’s continue to claim that if their chosen candidate is not selected, they will either stay home in November or vote for John McCain. Let’s take a moment to examine what the rationale for such a choice could be.

Presumably, if you are a supporter of one of these two Democrats, you feel that their stance on the issues and their plans for the future are in keeping with your own priorities and hopes for the country. If your chosen Senator is not selected, who would the person be who is closest to those goals? The two parties could not be further apart on most of the issues of the day. The way forward in Iraq, how we deal with national security and terrorism, how to deal with the sagging economy, how we approach global trade issues… John McCain is on the opposite side of the fence from both Clinton and Obama for each question right down the line.

So how are we to explain why a Hillary or Barack supporter would go cast a vote for John McCain? The answer is clear and very disappointing. It is nothing more than a fit of childish pique. “If my candidate doesn’t get nominated, I’ll show you! I’ll make sure your candidate gets the shaft too!” The reality, of course, is that you will be showing nobody but yourself, cutting off the nose of your party to spite its face.

I have been, and remain, hopeful that this is mostly the hyperbole and bluster of the silly season, but these numbers seem unshakable thus far. Comments pouring into the networks, newspapers, and even the pages of TMV seem to echo these sentiments. The Republicans have long had a habit, whenever they score a victory over the Democrats, to say that “the adults are back in charge now.” Many, many Republicans were less than pleased with John McCain taking the nomination (to put it kindly) but they have now largely swallowed their discontent and lined up behind their nominee. If one in five Democratic and Democrat leaning voters can not muster the sense to do the same, they will have single handedly done more to elect John McCain than Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Ben Stein combined could ever manage.

And then, dear readers, you will get precisely the government you deserve. Let me know how that works out for you.



This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 am and is filed under Primaries, Pennsylvania, Newsweek Blogitics, Barack Obama, 2008 Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 12 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Not exactly. I am convinced that either Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain would be a far better President for all of us than Sen. Obama is capable of being at this time.
    • ^
    • v
    we all get the government we deserve

    Mencken, btw. This of course, goes along with other sayings of his, such as democracy favors neither the lazy nor the stupid.

    Presumably, if you are a supporter of one of these two Democrats, you feel that their stance on the issues

    I don;t think most people vote on issues, and I think that's a good thing. People have learned over time that a politician may say anything to get elected. As there is no cost to being dishonest (or minimal, if you get caught speaking from both sides of your mouth. I'd like to see a campaign promise backed by a promised donation of 1 million dollars to the opposing party if they back out of what they promise), one of the more reliable methods left is to take the measure of the person. In that case, ranking hillary, obama, and mccain 1,2,3 in any order is quite possible. I myself would vote mccain first, obama second, and hillary third (note: I still think hillary is eminently qualified, just that I don't think she's as honest as the other two, which of course, may not be saying much).
    • ^
    • v
    Don't ignore the core of Hillary's message. Namely that Obama is an unelectable elitist blackpanther'esque terrorist that doesn't have the experience to be commander-in-chief. If you're a Hillary supporter and you take her at face value, how could you possibly support Obama?
    • ^
    • v
    If you'll pardon my saying, I find the responses about people "not really voting on the issues" to be alarming and dismaying. Have we really turned our presidential elections into nothing more than a beauty contest and competing cults of personality? Such a response, at least to me, means "I oppose the war in Iraq and would like to see us withdraw. Unless, of course, my candidate is not chosen in which case I want us to stay the course until we achieve victory. I would like to see universal health care for all in my country, unless my candidate is not chosen in which case it's a state level issue and not the federal government's business. I demand fair and equal treatment for all people, including gays and their right to marry, unless my candidate is not selected, in which case the darned gays are endangering my marriage and my way of life."

    I just can't wrap my head around that type of thinking.
    • ^
    • v
    Unfortunately, Holly in Cinn. is expressing the level of anger and spite in some of these supporters who refuse to accept the other.
    If she really looked at the issues, McCain's is not something to make anyone, especially a democrat, feel secure.
    Maybe supporters like these need to step back and think. Both democrats are better than McCain. Both are qualified and intelligent and wonky and versed on the issues. If you doubt Obama knows them, I'd suggest she takes the time out and maybe just scan some of the policies on the website to educate herself and maybe it would be apparent that both democrats are quite capable and able to be president.
    If having 3 years in the US Senate is what is bothering, then, the 10 spent in the Illinois Senate, is experience. Like a governor, they know the core issues and problems facing individual states and have a better understanding of how things work from federal to state and local and how they effect one another. It makes policy even more important to them.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, look, I don't want this to defenerate into name calling or abuse. I just feel that it's a legitimate question to ponder, and this goes for supporters of *both* candidates, not just one or the other. If you are that heavily invested in one of the two Democratic candidates, then surely you must like their ideas, proposals.. their vision for the country's future. And if you do, in fact, find those things attractive, then how does one find a vote for the other party a rational choice? Don't get me wrong. Senator McCain is also a very fine man, a solid candidate, and has much to reccomend him. But his proposed policies are so radically different then either of the Democrats it just boggles the mind.
    • ^
    • v
    "If you'll pardon my saying, I find the responses about people 'not really voting on the issues' to be alarming and dismaying."

    And worse. But that's what you see, including with the American Idol flavor of the Democratic race. It's all about feeling good (and enjoying more entitlements).
    • ^
    • v
    I understand why, on one level, it seems a bit crazy that saying "the issues aren;t the big thing for me", but think about it a little deeper, going beyong even the point about disngenuousness about policy: To a given person, a given candidate will have positions they disagree with. This is inevitable. Most of us compensate by having priorities and pushbutton issues (abortion, war, etc...). However, during teh course of a presidency, things will come up that we don;t aniticpate, at that point, you elevcted the man based on his judgement ability, and that is more based on why a given contender chose his positions, and in many sense, is invisible to rational analysis, and based on deuctive guesswork, ie intuition.

    I also hope that when one chooses based on issues that they do spend some time considering character, which is only really determinable by actions and body language. We humans are actually pretty good at figuring things like that out, and they tend to be harder to hide than tacking left for the primary then going to the center for the general.

    Also, I hope you realize how contemptuous you sound to people who might disagree with you. I realize it's a passionate situation, and people's lives are at sake, but not everyone is saying they'll switch for bad reasons. A lot of folks might be republicns who decided that the democrats should win this time, but have been turned off by discourse like this, and decided to go back to the other party in response.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree about getting the government we deserve.
    That means we are really questioning what kind of people we are, and ,more to the point,, what kind of people are the majorityy.

    On that question, I've grown to be rather cynical.
    A recurring theme in the endless analyses of the primaries is Obama's failure to 'connect 'with certain types of Americans, i.e. that he is too cerebral. While there is probably some truth in that, the only alternative provided in the political arena seems to be pandering,.
    Vote for me, and you'll get a good job, a house with garage and peace on earth. Not to be forgotten is the promise that 'your values', whatever they might be, will prevail in the land.

    My ideal candidate educates while he seduces, and I mean educates about how government works, why it fails, and why every wish can't be granted immediately by simply casting a vote. Lesson #1 should be that solutions are complicated, not fool-proof, and subject to failures in their own right.

    I don't think my ideal candidate has much a chance. People have been trained over generations to expect the pandering and the promisses of immediate wish fulfillment. It's become part of our culture, and culture is a big mountain to move.

    The frustrating thing is that at the same time, I think that people are much more intelligent than given credit for and are quite capable of understanding the most cerebral of social propositions---just not in the context of our customary politics.

    I hope I'm proven wrong and this dim view of our prospects is only a reflection of this forever campaign.
    • ^
    • v
    I disagree.
    1) As far as the polarity of the parties' stances - I feel they are so alike in so many ways that it's actually very sad, at least, for the rest of the world.
    2) As far as it being irrational to prefer McCain as a 2nd choice to the lesser Dem - I'm a character/integrity/conscience/morality voter, not a party constituent. I believe that it takes integrity & purity (as much as it exists) & honesty & decency to lead the strongest nation on our increasingly globally blended planet. I have a hard time believing any politician's statements on the issues (they simply are too vague & change too quickly to give me much confidence). Instead, I look at what I've seen them do in terms of being a good person (or too often, sadly, not being a bad person). And in my opinion, Mrs Clinton has come across (for years, & even worse in this campaign) as the most mud-slinging & self-centered & "political" (in that, back-room deal-making party-lines-trump-what's-right-for-America way) of the 3. I've come to realize that it may very well be Obama's relative inexperience & youth that keep his record & integrity cleanest in my opinion, but I'll be impressed if anyone could convince me to vote Clinton over McCain, god-forbid Obama not be the ultimate Dem choice.
    • ^
    • v
    Sure, we would all like a shiny boyscout when it comes to honesty, integrity and all that stuff.

    I don't see anyone so completely pure, however. McCain has seemed to be at times - until he caves in to the President (torture exemptions) or the public gas tax relief). In his debates with Romney, he was exceedingly creative with facts and even, currently, he misrerpesents factual information and statistics with natural ease.

    That doesn't make him a bad person. It makes him a politician. like all the rest., when they're selling themselves to the public.

    Clinton has been obviously dishonest during the campaign, as with Bosnia.
    During her WH years, however, it was really hard to tell fact from fiction, because both Clintons were hounded so by the Reps. I don't know how many people who've ever set foot in Washington could come out smelling like roses after such a shakedown.

    An accusation is not necessarily repreentative of the truth, so a lot of our impressions have to do as much with the eye of the beholder as with the one being scrutinized. If you like McCain, then naturally, you see him as a model citizen. If you don't or are indifferent, then you're not so starry eyed.

    Since I also value integriity, I rank Obama above the reat. I'm not starry eyed, however,. I don't expect a president to be an angel descended from heaves. I just expect him/her to be a decent human being.


    .
    • ^
    • v
    Jazz and other commentators to the main post, I hope that the Democratic leadership will push the winner to include the following concept in the general Democratic campaign: “If you are happy with where we are with Iraq, the economy, loyalty over competence embracing administration decision-making, etc, then vote Republican. But if you are looking for rational thinking, attacking problems from a pragmatic standpoint and not applying the same political dogma to nearly every decision that is made, then we invite you to vote Democratic in November!”

    Gents and ladies, if anyone favoring one of the two Democratic candidates would not vote for the other, we need some divine help! I don’t want to sound like a Move-On type of person, I really do approach each issue independently (e.g., can we afford national healthcare – how do we factor big tobacco’s resultant substantive smoking-related illnesses into the cost of healthcare, obesity and unhealthy lifestyles, the effect on manufacturing competitiveness, among healthcare influencers).

    In closing, if we get 70-80% of Clinton or Obama supporters embracing the other Senator, Democrats should have a reasonable chance in November (pending the influence of 3rd party candidates – Nader, Bahr, etc.). So I would not be too concerned just yet. As Howard Dean stated today on Meet the Press, he is hoping this would be resolved by the end of June. If that is achieved, I also believe that we will coalesce.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Ohiovania and Pennsylhio
2nd UPDATE: Still not 10 »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.