I'd Vote For Sasquatch
...If he floated some economically reasonable, feasible ideas about health care and Social Security, and sound policy on immigration, terrorism, and other issues. I have yet to hear much more than rabid pandering from those candidates with some chance of appearing on the ballot.
Granted, there are those who won't vote for Hillary because she's a chick, and those who won't vote for Obama because he's half black -- same as there are those who won't vote for McCain because he's an old white guy, and they think it's about time there was a vagina in the big chair in The Oval Office (I mean, one that belongs to somebody who's running the country, not just blowing the guy who's got the job.)
I'd venture there are actually a lot of people that think as I do -- people who are sick of the Democratic dance and the Republican dance, and who just want a candidate who isn't a sleazy sellout with ideas that wouldn't get them a passing grade in a community college beginning econ class.
Yet, here's Nora Ephron, popping in at the Huffington Post to chatter about her problem with the primary. And I bet you can guess what that is:
Now that there are only two Democratic candidates, it's suddenly horribly absolutely crystal-clear that this is an election about gender and race....This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men.
... If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.
Hillary's case is not an attractive one, because what she'll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.
I'm thinking of the term "voting one's pocketbook," and I have to laugh. With big financial institutions going under and getting government welfare, and all these Crazy Eddie-style mortgages going into foreclosure, plus the threat of terrorism, and the U.S. comptroller warning that we've borrowed our country into such a deep hole, if we don't dig out fast we'll never get out...do people really have the luxury to vote along color or gender lines? From what I read and hear it seems that that many or most people are voting for the candidate they despise the least.
Now, it is possible I'm the naive one on this, or perhaps you'll agree with me that Nora Ephron should stick to promoting failed ideas that are more within her range of expertise, like Bewitched.
White men don't hate women and they don't hate blacks. You wanna know what they really hate? Cankles in 8" Stilettos.
Bikerken at April 22, 2008 1:15 AM
Meeting her definition of "white man", I can say: it is impossible to be unaware of Clinton's gender or Obama's race. But it has little relevance to their qualifications to hold office.
The fact that Ms. Ephron believes that white men "hate" women and blacks reveals a great deal about her own world-view...
bradley13 at April 22, 2008 1:37 AM
What scares me the most is that marginal thinkers like Ephron are the ones that are moving the masses with their twaddle.
People read shit in newspapers, and they BELIEVE it. So now, some otherwise functionally intelligent white guy is going to read this, knowing he doesn't have a racist bone in his body, and he's going to vote fro Obama just to SHOW that bitch she's wrong.
That seems at least as bad as voting against him because he's black.
I keep waiting for someone to ask me who I'm supporting, and when they try to hit me with the race or sex angle, I've got a reply at the ready:
I'm just not ready to vote for a communist yet.
brian at April 22, 2008 5:09 AM
Luckily, it wasn't in the newspaper, just on the Huffington Post.
Amy Alkon at April 22, 2008 6:20 AM
Amy, you and I see eye-to-eye on political issues, but apparently we are very much in the minority. Our government (for all the reasons you mentioned, and then some) keeps screwing things up, but what do people want? More government! All three candidates want more government, and the reason they ARE candidates is because most people expect the government to fix everything and solve their problems for them. Until the general mentality of Americans changes, this is all we are going to get. But I don't expect that to happen, because getting the government out of your hair means taking responsibility for yourself, and most people honestly don't want that.
Pirate Jo at April 22, 2008 6:39 AM
Add me to your list, Pirate Jo! I want the government out of my private life and out of bed with the big corporations who are running everything. And you're so right about people not wanting to take any responsibility for themselves. It's so much easier to blame someone else for the mess you make of your life, right?
Flynne at April 22, 2008 6:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/22/id_vote_for_sas.html#comment-1541785">comment from FlynneAnd so much easier, too, if you send "someone else" the bill.
Amy Alkon at April 22, 2008 7:09 AM
Ann Althouse said something like this girl is a Satire writer or something (I'd look now but Websense blocks her site). I read it originally and got slightly angry but after I read althouse I figured if Ann is correct then I'm just like the liberals who can't take a joke. Anyone else know anything more about this womens writing styles?
Scott at April 22, 2008 7:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/22/id_vote_for_sas.html#comment-1541788">comment from ScottSwift was a satirist and suggested that the Irish eat their children. You get that that's satire, right? Easily, right? Me, too.
Amy Alkon at April 22, 2008 7:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/22/id_vote_for_sas.html#comment-1541789">comment from Amy AlkonHere. Swift was absolutely hilarious. Is. Still, today:
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
See anything resembling satire in Ephron's piece? Me neither.
Amy Alkon at April 22, 2008 7:32 AM
Ms. Ephron's latest makes me a lot more sympathetic to Carl Bernstein.
A Berman at April 22, 2008 7:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/22/id_vote_for_sas.html#comment-1541795">comment from A BermanHilarious.
Amy Alkon at April 22, 2008 7:49 AM
I wish someone could tell me HOW we (the people) could actually change our government. It seems to me it is completely in the hands of the big corporations (oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc.). They even have their leader (AKA Dick Cheney) in the White House. I see no reason to vote, other than local issues. The political machines put in who they want, powered by big business, and we are the robots who obey their commands. How can this ever change, other than outright revolution, and that won't happen unless the middle class goes broke, and decides to take charge. Then you end up with Cuba.
Mary Jane at April 22, 2008 10:18 AM
How? Really simple.
1: STOP VOTING FOR INCUMBENTS.
The surest way to cripple the government is to provide for a high turnover rate among the representatives.
2: MINIMIZE GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE IN BUSINESS
If government does not exercise so much control over business, then business will not seek to exercise so much control over government.
brian at April 22, 2008 10:33 AM
I'm voting with Pirate Jo and Flynne. I'm not happy about the choices either party is putting up this year. I agree that none of the candidates are interested in personal responsibility, for anything! Spend too much on credit? We'll bail you out! Buy too much house? We'll bail you out! Etc., etc., ad nauseam. This disease extends to many state governments as well, and it only allows the government to dictate more and more what people can and can't do on their own. The sad part is that the people eat this up. They figure it is "their due" because they paid into it. This is because the prevailing wisdom has told us there is no shame in anything anymore, being on the dole included. McCain is the least odious of the major party candidates in these terms, but he is not great. Voting for a smaller party isn't a possibility. I have voted Libertarian in the past but have grown increasingly unhappy with their stance on national security. They also don't have a chance in hell. So as I said, I'm back to least odious. Hillary and Obama simply don't have the chops with most of the issues on the table. Does that make me a racist, woman-hating white man? I don't think so, but apparently Nora and I would disagree. That's OK, she's not my type. I'm not looking to impress her.
Me me me me me at April 22, 2008 10:37 AM
Amen, Brian. And by the way, Mary Jane, the executive branch does not make the laws, that is up to Congress. Check there for influence by "big business". However, what Brian said was right. Government people don't know how to run a business, being a legislator does not grant those skills.
And sorry to all for the previous giant monolithic paragraph from my other post. Once I started typing, I couldn't stop.
Me me me me me at April 22, 2008 10:41 AM
heh, so a couple of thinks...
er, I'm guessin' that in terms of actual turnout, white men are quite the minority, either in primary or general elections. The coalition of everyone else, surely trumps their vote, if we look at it that way...
But WHY look at it that way? You can vote for things, and this is much more important than voting against things. It's the difference between risking for a win and playing safe to avoid a loss. Playing safe should be plan B, if plan A doesn't work. But if you only play safe, and that doesn't work, what're you going to do?
This is a problem I often see, esp. lately in the Dems. Years ago I voted for Nader, just because I thought he would at least tell the truth. My Dem friends were insensed, because they thought Nader took away votes from Gore. So what? I said. If Gore is really the best, then he will win, because he is good enough to vote for. If he can't differentiate himself enough to be worth voting for, then he doesn't deserve it. The whining about not quite getting there, is as bad as the bull about having a mandate when you win with such a narrow margin. It gets ugly when there isn't that good of a choice, only less bad ones.
In the final analysis, THIS is why I am constantly talking at my fellow voters to think correctly about this... is something that Mary Jane Said. "I wish someone could tell me HOW we (the people) could actually change our government."
the answer is right there in what you said, but it is a slight change in thinking. Don't think of "our Government" as being a separate entity. IT'S US. We {the people}. Start by thinking about it that way, and then extrapolate forward... To have this many people, we need to find some representatives, and they will need to be able to make some decisions on our behalf, and so forth. But they are still US.
If we do not hold them accountable, they won't be. To hold them accountable is to vote them out if needs be, or to vote something better in. Large Corporations DON'T VOTE. If you don't tell your representative to listen to you, they will listen to money.
And Yes you are a tiny cog, and yes you won't affect the outcome alone, but when you look at this as being a thing that is your responsibility, you will find all those other people that do too. And you will talk amongst yourselves, and you will agree sometimes and you will disagree others, and you will be your own government. But ONLY if you believe you have this power, and only if you are willing to excercise it.
Sure, we are coming down eventually to the Old guy with the temper vs. somebody... but you have to remember, that the President is only one person. There are many others that shape what happens, and you can offset one against the other to take you where you wish to go. One of the most important messages you can send is participation at some level in the process. Even if you consciously DON'T vote for a pres, because you hate them all, you CAN vote what is important locally. Make sure that person knows that you are voting for them to represent you, therefore they have a responsibility to work for you.
Ultimately, I guess, we can just tell everyone we know, to TAKE responsibility. Figure stuff out. Make a decision. Don't listen to hype alone. I had a very long conversation with a friend who is a universal healthcare promoter. I kept coming back to "who will pay", and she kept saying but people NEED it. I finally said: "what YOU want is for ME to pay for your healthcare, is that true?" I don't think she had ever thought of it that way. The government doesn't actually pay for anything. We do. "They" don't make decisions. We do. Sometimes WE don't all agree on what decision to make, but this is normal, not a reason to disengage...
SwissArmyD at April 22, 2008 11:34 AM
Beautifully said, SwissArmyD.
You start with the 2 million mouth-breathing dullards on the left who keep voting for the status quo, and I'll do my best with the two million sitting on the right.
Okay, actually I did agree with everything you said, and I do the same things you do. But I think it was Crid who said that most people have better things to do. It doesn't make them bad people, it makes them preoccupied with their kids, their jobs, their errands, their TV shows, etc. And how much of your life are you really willing to sink into trying to make revolutionary changes when there are too few of you to make a difference?
I'll use Social Security as an example, since it's a biggie. How popular was the idea of private accounts? How excited were people about the idea that their contributions to SSI might be backed by actual assets? How many of them really understand or care about the nature of the problem? When the money starts to dry up, how many of them will simply demand an even bigger government "solution" than the problem created by government in the first place? According to your logic, WE put this disaster in place, so it's what we want. Not what you and I as individuals want, but the people in general. I guess we just don't have much in common with the general public. And this would be why we have three socialists running for office.
Hell, I'm not having kids - what do I care? I'm tempted to just smoke a fattie, ride my bike in the sunshine, and let the world continue in whatever merry way it wishes after I am gone. Such an outlook will surely keep my hair from turning gray.
Pirate Jo at April 22, 2008 12:01 PM
Why didn't the Democrats pick a half Hispanic/half black woman? They got themselves into this mess.
Jim at April 22, 2008 12:04 PM
heh, what's wrong with gray?
"WE put this disaster in place, so it's what we want."
THIS is where I go with people. They say "nooo, it's not!" well then you have to change it... deciding to do nothing is also a valid decision, as long as you MAKE it a decision. What you and Crid mentioned about not taking the time, is very true. That's OK. That means that people actually willing to do something are the people who make change. Either of us can use that...
and still have time to take a ride.
another thing is, you may get mad-as-hell about ONE thing. Do that one thing. If they are trying to build a super wally world in the middle of a greenbelt, INSTEAD of the adjacent industrial area, say IT!
SwissArmyD at April 22, 2008 12:20 PM
Well, you are right about local issues being easier to influence. And as far as the bigger issues go, I think making a donation to the Cato Institute makes more of a difference than who I vote for.
Pirate Jo at April 22, 2008 12:28 PM
Only from my own personal interaction with "folks" on the train, at work, church, etc. is that most do not care about politics and when something like expensive gas happend their response is "make it go away". Most seem to be too busy with their lives to take an interest in politics or the bigger political issues. Most also do not have the time or familiarity with the issues to be able to deal responsibly with them. What is left? Wait to the situation (Social Security, Medicare) gets so out of hand a decision has to be made? Let the thing collapse? I really do not know. Most people I know vote their self interest, mostly being benefits for me and pain for someone else.
Richard Cook at April 22, 2008 2:00 PM
Richard Cook, that has been my experience as well. As hideous as it sounds, and I realize this is completely anecdotal, it seems to me that a lot of people think Social Security works like a 401K. They do not realize their contributions are going straight out the door. You hear a few people talk about changing that, and I support them, but no one else seems to. The oldsters who stand to benefit from SSI outnumber us too much. Not that I'm trying to be grumpy or cynical, but isn't it just being realistic to acknowledge when you're beaten by sheer numbers?
Pirate Jo at April 22, 2008 3:22 PM
If you want to be depressed, don't listen to me - just check out this from reason.com:
http://reason.tv/video/show/394.html
Pirate Jo at April 22, 2008 4:19 PM
But having said that, this comment from SwissArmyD
" ... people actually willing to do something are the people who make change. Either of us can use that...
and still have time to take a ride."
certainly is cheerful in its optimism.
Pirate Jo at April 22, 2008 4:21 PM
As a youngin, I never counted on getting a dime of social security. It's just another payroll deduction, never even see the money.
Now lets talk about what would happen if the Federal Government did not have those social security funds to siphon from. Do you think they would stop spending? Or just raise some of the other various forms of tax I pay?
I think many young people's idea of SS reform is to open a retirement account, take care of their own retirment needs and write FICA off as just another tax. Unfortunately, it's starting to look like those retirement accounts are going to evaporate as the bubbles burst.
So with pessimistic jaded youth and old folks who stand to draw benefits, where is the support going to come from?
"Buy too much house?" It doesn't matter how modest your purchasing decisions, if you bought in the last 4 years, yer screwed. But I have very little sympathy for people whining about adjustable rates when prime is at 5.x. Unless your margin is absurd, you're still getting a good deal.
smurfy at April 22, 2008 5:11 PM
Jo-
I think the grander point is that, for many issues, a decision is made or not made when there are no other choices left.
I keep hearing about seemingly great ideas (flat tax, various social security fixes, etc.) and my reaction is the same: It's just words. Maybe great ideas even. If the electorate is so disengaged what is the likelyhood of change?
Smurfy: Just from my interactions with folk the idea of "it's the government's job to help us" is so firmly rooted only actually running out of money will force the lectorate to look at other than government options.
Richard Cook at April 22, 2008 6:17 PM
Should have been ...electorate....
Richard Cook at April 22, 2008 6:18 PM
Smurfy, I bitched this up on another post. I'm 38, so if current projections hold true, SSI will be going bankrupt the year I turn 60. (And that's not even figuring in the effects of Medicare.) I have a theory that if this happens as projected, it will be a non-issue much like Y2K. People my age and younger think just the way you described - none of us expect to get a dime of it. So when the money dries up and we don't get anything, no one's really going to care because this is what we've been expecting all along. We take it for granted that we're going to get an ass-reaming, so the bastards are going to get away with it! But in the meantime, being outnumbered by a bunch of old buzzards and unable to do anything about it, I pay for their 30-year retirements while expecting to work until age 75 myself.
And I agree with you about the mortgage "crisis" too. My interest rate could double and I would never be in any danger of losing my house, because I *bought well within my means.* These fools who make $38,000 a year and think they can afford a $700,000 house are living in la-la land somewhere. And don't even get me started on people who lose their jobs and then sit around unemployed forever. I'd get a job waiting tables, for chrissake - I've worked minimum wage jobs before and I'd do it again if I had to. Thank you. This rant has been brought to you by the letter T and by the number 7.
Pirate Jo at April 22, 2008 7:07 PM
"I'm 38" just a punk! Heh, so I only got a few years on you. I ain't got nuttin' but funnily enough if I HAD any kind of retirement accounts, my ex- would have gotten them, so? I ain't got nuttin' however... when I was first watching this social security tax disappearing from my paycheck when I was a kid, I looked into it a bit, and realized that federal budgets are such a sliding scale, and the numbers are so nebulous, we will NEVER know if there is enough, or not enough. Prolly by that time, the retirement age will be 70+ anyway... eventually heading to the point where retirement happens about the time you croak. :shrug: What would I do retired, anyway? Learn to play golf? Be the wise old man that the community thinks they still need? Chase girls? OK... maybe that.
Anyway, on the optimistic thing, really I am quite cynical, being made so by the continued reruns of "Mama's House". Is it really better than dead air time for ad revenue? Somebody must think it's a good idea.
But, my POV of preaching to people that making a decision is a better thing than letting the decision be made for you, is more of a mindset. EVEN IF, my words fall on deaf ears, even if, people watch mama's house instead of voting, or vote a straight party line... my own course is clear, the only thing I can control is myself. I can invite other people to control themselves, too, and some small percentage will. Those that don't care will make the decision not to decide, and so my decisions will have proportionately more weight. That may not be worth much in the long run, in terms of amazing change, but it is important to me as an individual.
SwissArmyD at April 23, 2008 12:28 PM
Leave a comment