Invective (and Other Useless Things)

I have set up camp in a forlorn little corner of the firmly leftist, determinedly alone; that’s not to say that there aren’t others who possess similar outlooks, but, at the same time, I insist on maintaining individuality in my views.  Your views are not my views, even if they are wholly congruent.  My pro-choice is entirely different from your pro-choice is entirely different from their pro-life.  I despise the idea of voting straight ticket for the sole purpose of some vague notion of party solidarity and I refuse to believe such things are anything other than dangerously counter-productive.  I am mainly a Democrat, really, but I am a little Republican, a touch of Communist, and a splash of Libertarian, and these ideologies coexist, usually peacefully, inside my cluttered little mind.  I remain so because I vehemently believe they all have something valid to offer a successful political apparatus.

So, from theory to practice: what of 2008?  In the end, I’ve found it wise (as most do) to distrust rhetoric because of  the prerogatives and ulterior motives that fuel the motor in a candidate’s mouth.  (Interestingly enough, isn’t the most trustworthy speech in American politics delivered by a second term president, due to the unconstitutionality of a third term?  Of course, I use "trustworthy" in its more untrustworthy sense, i.e. Georgey W.).  Man usually makes his own luck, of course, but that was not always the case in presidential elecitons, and oftentimes silver tongues are sold for well over market price.  Not to mention that shit dipped in silver is still mostly shit.  Case-in-point: John McCain is being punished for the sins of his predecessor.  To some degree, at least, though a fraction of it is probably warranted.  And Obama is being vaunted for his eloquence, probably in part because of our current president’s lamentable incoherence–I would vote a mute in if I felt he was the most qualified.  Such is the cyclical nature of our two-party government.

I voted for John Kerry in 2004, but only as an attempt to prevent what happened: four more years of a semi-functional retard running the country, when I wouldn’t trust him to run a Burger King.  Interestingly enough, the best satire for that election (and perhaps funniest) was an episode of South Park, wherein which the kids, deciding upon a new school mascot, had to choose between a douche bag and a shit sandwich. Unsure of what use I had for a douche bag, I chose the shit sandwich.  I was still shocked when Bush won, though, although that was probably a dram of naivite on my teenaged part.  The Onion headline said it best: "Nation’s Poor Elect Nation’s Rich," though that label is relative in the political realm.

What I don’t understand, however, is the bulk of the Republican Party’s base.  Sure, I understand why a wealthy steel tycoon would vote for a McCain or a Bush, because they will more or less protect that wealth.  But the vast majority of us aren’t steel tycoons, and the lion’s share of the average Republican nominee’s electoral votes come from this country’s poorest states.  Why would a Republican nominee, McCain, disparage a so-called Obama plan to "redistrubute" wealth?  Why would his voter base eat that stupid shit up?  Are we so far removed from historican cognizance that we can’t recollect the last attempt to "redistribute" wealth, The New Deal, or the way in which it helped resolve the greatest financial crisis of the twentieth century?  Isn’t the financial bailout plan actually a 700,000,000,000 (it makes more of an impact when you include the zeroes, I think) dollar experiment in wealth distribution (socialism), supposedly a pillar of the left?  Ironically enough, a leftist measure necessitated by the extreme irresponsibility and monolithic greed of the largely right (Wall Street bankers and traders).  The expected average annual bonus for the recently government-buoyed Goldman Sachs?  Over 200,000 dollars.  Just an example.  So the government gives banks who made immoral and unethical loans billions to replenish defaulted equity, and those same banks turn around and give billions of dollars (less billions, admittedly) to the same mostly Republican bankers who caused the fucking mess in the first place.  To spend on random shit, instead of freeing up capital to loan.  If those douche-nozzles accept those bonuses, I don’t know what I’ll do.

I don’t know.  I’m just rehashing the same tired talking points.  But isn’t it ridiculous to attack someone for wanting to "expand government" and "increase spending" when you’re the vociferous champion of a 10 billion dollar a month war in Iraq?

Sigh…