Friday, February 16, 2007

Toothless

I've made it no secret that, generally, I'm politically conservative. Actually, I'm more politically apathetic, given that I don't feel like the system in any way represents me or any of the other "little people" (the populace at large, not limited to, well, little people), but when I vote, I tend to vote conservatively. Generally, this means that I end up voting for guys who I know will be self-serving idiots just because they claim they'll vote the way I want them to on what are key issues for me as a voter. I know, when I vote for them, that they're probably going to do a lot of other things that will end up screwing me over, but so long as those key issues are covered, I'll just have to suck it up and take it like a man.

That said, I've never supported the war in Iraq. I think, looking back, that we did some good there, early on, but lately all we seem to be doing is swapping lives for no real gain. So I can see where the Democratic party leaders in Congress might see an opportunity to exercise their power to do something about it. Personally, I think that we made this mess, we need to clean it up, but I'm aware that I'm just a guy who hears stuff on the news. It's possible that they could have better information than I do.

That's why I've lost any possibility of having respect for all of them. Well, ok, I didn't really have much respect for the people in Congress (or most politicians, really), so this is more like going into negative numbers, but, come on! A non-binding resolution?!?!? If you're going to do something, have the guts to do it all the way! It's like the little guy who wants to make a show like he's a threat, but makes sure his friends are "holding him back" so he doesn't actually have to get in a fight. Are there political implications of this little weenie bill? Sure. Everybody will be on record (except for the ones who can't be bothered to show up) as to where they stand on the war, but that's just a bunch of posturing for the ones running for President who don't want to be held accountable for their original votes for the war. I really think Hillary is the worst thus far. I've had no love for her before, but she keeps saying that if she'd had better information, then she would've voted differently.

As if she had no responsibility to research for herself before voting.

The thing is, like everyone else who voted for the war, she got caught up in the post 9-11 feelings and, maybe even motivated by her constituency (I imagine the people of New York might've had a problem with her if she'd voted against it, since they were such a big part of the whole thing), and she voted with her feelings instead of researching it for herself and voting that way.

Then again, maybe I'm giving her too much credit. Maybe she is just voting with whatever she thinks will be more popular.

The problem with democracy is that it ignores the fact that people, as a collective, are stupid. The problem with representative democracy is that it panders to the collectively stupid.

Labels:

2 Comments:

Blogger Chuck Cottrell said...

See, that's why the developed the whole Electoral College thing. It was originally designed to keep the people from actually voting for the president. In theory, the electoral college could look at the popular vote, say "that's a stupid choice," and pick someone completely different. Now, it's never actually worked that way...

Living in the DC area has really altered how I have to think about politics. Back in Oklahoma or Arkansas, we're kinda insulated from it all; here in northern Virginia, you get a stronger sense of all the idiocy these folks are up to on a day to day basis.

As if anyone really wanted that.

7:43 PM  
Blogger Noise Monkey said...

If it weren't for the fact that most everywhere else the idiots in power would most likely shoot me, I'd probably pack my bags and go.

And is it not just a little ridiculous that we're already talking about this? We just finished the mid-terms!!!!

8:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home