I've never lived in a battleground state. I've lived in California, Oregon, Utah, New Jersey, and New York, and in none of those states did my vote matter much.
In states like New York, and especially in cities like New York City where I am currently, there's something to be said for voting against the local hegemony. Because let's be real: there isn't the liberal conspiracy in NYC that some republicans say there is, but there's definitely a liberal establishment. When I'm at a party or in an elevator, it's a safe bet that I'm the only conservative or even moderate in the group, and I tend to assume as much.
When an entire city of 8 million takes that attitude, it's easy to take liberalism for granted and wind up believing that conservativism is for flyover states. Beyond the inherent arrogance in such a belief, I actually think it makes New York every bit as small-town provincial as any flyover state, because New Yorkers are so rarely exposed to another point of view. Every liberal ideal gets piped from Hollywood and New York into Oklahoma and Utah, but the pipes only flow one way. For instance, have you EVER seen a conservative-slanted movie get major distribution? Yet I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the liberal-slanted major motion pictures from the last four years alone.
So here's how this ends up: flyover-state conservatives "get" urban liberalism, or at least are exposed to it regularly. In the meantime, urban liberals think flyover state conservatives are either stupid or out of their minds. I see this offensive attitude literally every single day, both in the office, on the street, and on TV and in print.
If you're at all on the fence this election season and you don't live in a battleground state, vote against your local political hegemony. Liberals in New York and their representatives need to know that there are intelligent conservatives among them. Conservatives in Oklahoma and Utah might be enlightened by the fact that liberalism isn't just for urbanites who live near large bodies of water. In each case, though, representatives will know that there are diverse constituencies in their districts, and might be pulled toward the center.
Oct 6, 2008
How McCain Almost Had My Support (but lost it)
I've been on the fence about who to vote for for months now, and the whole time I said I'd probably make my decision based on the running mates. I know the veep doesn't actually do much within an administration (present administration excepted), but I have grave doubts about Obama's ability to lead, and while I like the younger McCain of 2000, his kowtowing to the far right over the past four years has soured my view of him, and I don't have much confidence in his ability to tackle the fiscal issues that need tackling.
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin made my decision a heckuva lot easier, and solidified his role in my mind as a craven politician of the worst kind. Essentially, a man of McCain's age choosing Palin as his running mate, given the odds that he won't be able to make it through a full term alive, represents reckless endangerment of the United States.
If McCain were a "maverick," he would've picked someone capable of assisting with our country's problems regardless of the votes they would bring to the ticket. Romney is an obvious choice, Bloomberg a less obvious one only because he;d likely refuse the position. Heck, pick Huckabee...at least he governed for 11 years, and he might actually shore up that far-right base. Instead, McCain did the opposite: picked someone who has absolutely nothing to contribute to the ticket or to the country except deliver votes.
Frankly, Sen. McCain should be tried for treason just for increasing the odds that Gov. Palin ends up leading this country in the next four years.
Maybe she'd grow into it. She's certainly intelligent, and she's handling the situation and her current level of ignorance with supreme savviness. And in all likelihood her ignorance is only temporary. But she's not ready to lead this country, and whoever is on the ticket with McCain (or any candidate) needs to be.
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin made my decision a heckuva lot easier, and solidified his role in my mind as a craven politician of the worst kind. Essentially, a man of McCain's age choosing Palin as his running mate, given the odds that he won't be able to make it through a full term alive, represents reckless endangerment of the United States.
If McCain were a "maverick," he would've picked someone capable of assisting with our country's problems regardless of the votes they would bring to the ticket. Romney is an obvious choice, Bloomberg a less obvious one only because he;d likely refuse the position. Heck, pick Huckabee...at least he governed for 11 years, and he might actually shore up that far-right base. Instead, McCain did the opposite: picked someone who has absolutely nothing to contribute to the ticket or to the country except deliver votes.
Frankly, Sen. McCain should be tried for treason just for increasing the odds that Gov. Palin ends up leading this country in the next four years.
Maybe she'd grow into it. She's certainly intelligent, and she's handling the situation and her current level of ignorance with supreme savviness. And in all likelihood her ignorance is only temporary. But she's not ready to lead this country, and whoever is on the ticket with McCain (or any candidate) needs to be.
Oct 1, 2008
Where Have All the Moderate Legislators Gone?
Slate's "The Big Sort" has quickly become one of my favorite features on the site, and this recent post is excellent.
The article traces the causes behind the lack of consensus in Congress. Basically, the left- and right-wing members of congress can't agree on anything anymore for three reasons:
The scary thing for moderate Americans is that this could be happening on a macro level as well, and we could end up living in a nation of idealogues living in their enclaves (even more so than we are already). Says Bill Bishop in the Slate article:
This will likely become a predominant theme of this blog; but in the context of this particular post, I can think of two solutions: First, vote moderate. We desperately need more moderates in congress. Second: We need to try getting outside of our comfort zones, whether that's Salon or Fox News, Salt Lake City or New York City. I don't understand the desire to shield ourselves and our beliefs from any person or opinion that might come in conflict. Liberals like to lob this accusation at Bush, but in my personal experience they are no less guilty of this than Bush is.
I'll definitely do another post on this later, but let's all try stretching our brains a bit by exposing them to some ideas, even if--heaven forbid--we might not agree with them.
The article traces the causes behind the lack of consensus in Congress. Basically, the left- and right-wing members of congress can't agree on anything anymore for three reasons:
1) There's no longer a moderate middle in Congress to pull the differing parties together
2) Congressional districts are more lopsided than ever (either all-red or all-blue), so pleasing your constituents involves going way right or way left
3) Congressman and women don't live in D.C. anymore, so there isn't as much personal and social interaction around town and across party lines.
The scary thing for moderate Americans is that this could be happening on a macro level as well, and we could end up living in a nation of idealogues living in their enclaves (even more so than we are already). Says Bill Bishop in the Slate article:
Many Americans now live in like-minded communities so isolated that they have little understanding (or sympathy) for those people and places with different opinions. Americans have become like the people of Babel, wrote congressional scholar Nelson Polsby.
This will likely become a predominant theme of this blog; but in the context of this particular post, I can think of two solutions: First, vote moderate. We desperately need more moderates in congress. Second: We need to try getting outside of our comfort zones, whether that's Salon or Fox News, Salt Lake City or New York City. I don't understand the desire to shield ourselves and our beliefs from any person or opinion that might come in conflict. Liberals like to lob this accusation at Bush, but in my personal experience they are no less guilty of this than Bush is.
I'll definitely do another post on this later, but let's all try stretching our brains a bit by exposing them to some ideas, even if--heaven forbid--we might not agree with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)