Why I will certainly not vote in 2008!
It's been a while, haven't really sat down and written on politics. But now that I have an excuse (someone dared me to), I will reveal the motives behind my apathy.
The truth is I am not apathetic to politics at all, I am very interested in it. I plan to pursue a career in politics (hopefully helping to craft a successful third party). I used to pay a lot more attention to the day to day of this political game until I realized what a waste of time buying into this sorry excuse for a political process is.
Here's how I see it: On one side you have this machine, the Republicans, who are clearly only interested in themselves. And on the other side you have a bunch of snobby liberals, the Democrats, who have become so inconsistent with liberal values it is disgusting. I am not represented by either of these horrific groups, so I will not vote.
Allow me to elaborate...
According to MSNBC the major issues are the Economy, Health Care, Energy?!, Immigration?!, and the Iraq War.
Education seems to have fallen off the radar completely. I guess the No Child Left Behind Act really did solve all of the problems in our Education system. That must be why there are sites, like this, dedicated to repealing this act. If you simply do a search for No Child Left Behind Act at http://news.google.com/ you will get several sources detailing the numerous pitfalls associated with this bill. This bill is not only actively decreasing the amount of funding and support given to the educational system, it is also a blatant abuse of federalism, which unfortunately is consistent with most of the laws created in the latter half of the 20th century. The point essentially is this, the federal government has become extremely power hungry. You know the tenth amendment, the one about the states, it's there for a reason. The states are in the best position to decide how to conduct themselves in areas other than National Defense. Several Republican candidates agree with this position, however they do not see it the way I do. I support block grants, unhindered funding which the state can use how they see fit. I think that the national government should still increase funding however they should not mandate how the funds are to be used. Most of the Democrats oppose NCLB but still think that the national government should solve the Education problem. Any plan formulated by the federal government to monitor education is a violation of the Constitution. Federalism is supposed to be a delicate balance where power is shared between the federal government and the states, but instead we have these leaders who ignore this aspect of our system completely and make statements and actions that are detrimental to this fragile balance that has served us so well in the past. Are you beginning to see why I can't vote?
My next target is the "Energy Debate", what debate? First of all, I'm not sure Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson actually believe in global warming, but this still should not deter them from reducing greenhouse gases. So this is the first point of this debate, all candidates will seek to reduce greenhouse emissions, this is obviously not an issue that will help you decide who to vote for, so why are we even discussing it? The next point is how to raise fuel efficiency, if at all. Most democratic candidates support raising the average fuel efficiency of vehicles by 2017 and they give arbitrary methods and benchmarks, very nice. The problem is that most also support the use of E85 fuel. Why is this a problem? Because people are starving somewhere. The strongest argument against E85 is not that it will significantly reduce gas mileage (as if that's not enough), it is that using corn to fuel all new cars will significantly raise demand for corn, which will significantly raise the price of corn. Don't take my word for it, China initiated a move to ethanol in 2001 and has already been forced to ban the use of grain due to adverse affects to the price of food. Sources are always good, an article from today in Down to Earth magazine supporting my claim. And one interesting article from the Economist with a few words about the global price of food. But these types of discussions of course are avoided by politicians, as that would require thought, not just rhetoric. Now the third point of the "Energy Debate", the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. This has been a topic of debate since the Carter years. I am very familiar with the topic due to an offbeat argument we used to use in policy debate in high school. For the most part Democrats are opposed and Republicans support drilling in ANWR, another central point in the current leadership (refusal to compromise). The truth is that there is no environmental reason against drilling in ANWR, it is a myth. An article from a Senator Murkowski in 2000 helps to explain. If you do research on the effect of Prudhoe Bay on Caribou, you will see that the population of Caribou has increased at a quicker pace since the drilling began. This is a strictly rhetorical argument by liberals that protects imaginary interests. It is trendy to say no to ANWR, but it is not helping the country. Don't vote on the "Energy Debate", it is all rhetoric and no impact.
Next, Immigration (let's get the easy ones out of the way first shall we?!), this should not take precedence over any of the other issues presented (except maybe Energy) so normally I would disregard it completely, but I'm in the mood to bash some arguments so here we go. I am going to approach the argument against illegal immigration as if it were a Kritik, if you are not familiar with this type of argument then you may want to briefly read the wikipedia article as I will use numerous terms from this article. The argument against immigration is that these people who should not be legally allowed in the country are costing us monetarily. Let's break this argument down. First we need to get the K (kritik) structure down, the link is obviously that the national government is responsible for protecting the border, the impact or implication is that it is costing taxpayers unnecessarily, but the alternative is not completely clear. So let's start with the alternative. The alternative proposed by almost all candidates is to increase border protection. Some say build a fence, some say there is new technology to help, in either case you are looking at increased cost to the taxpayers. Isn't that their only impact in the first place? Instead of helping these people, apparently we want to keep them out, even if it costs us more to do so. And how effective will "increased border protection" actually be in preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country? It is very easy to say things against illegal immigration, but is there actually a viable alternative? And do any of these candidates have any idea? I think not. And what about the fact that there may be benefits to illegal immigration (listen to Glenn Loury, a professor of Economics at Brown)?! So the first argument against this K is that the alternative bites the K, the alternative may not actually be effective in reducing illegal immigration and will also create a burden on taxpayers. This leads to the real argument I want to make, this issue destroys the framework of the election. There is no clear action that will resolve the burden on the taxpayers. Don't vote on this issue.
In the remaining three issues: Health Care, the Iraq War, and the Economy; Republicans and Democrats are just arguing for sake of argument, and have been for quite some time. Let's start with Health Care: Democrats support "socialized" health care and Republicans oppose due to free market ideals. First this is again a state issue, not a federal issue. And again I support block grants to the states to help solve this issue. Who represents the states? Oh yeah, congress, who apparently doesn't have a voice in this issue because the President will abuse his constitutional right to veto bills just for the sake of preventing action. Unless congress and the President work together, you know, compromise, this issue will never move forward. Next is the Economy: we have to cut spending, that's simple, it's also tied in with the war: the time has come for a viable exit strategy which will allow for a more balanced budget. There is a fundamental problem for our leaders with the exit from Iraq. A lot of economic growth is supported by military spending. A lot of people are employed in Iraq. When you cut military spending and deactivate 100,000+ troops you may cause a serious burden on the economy.
In the past leaders were willing to create social programs to help create jobs domestically (Eisenhower's Interstate Highway, FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society), ever since the Cold War escalated, however, we have favored military spending over this kind of domestic spending. It is time to shift back. There are many things that would be beneficial, such as a high speed rail system, and again this money could probably be better used by the states. We are without a leader who has a vision for improving our domestic infrastructure and we are therefore forced to choose between several bickering candidates who use rhetoric to win the masses but will arrive in Washington without a clear idea of how to progress. Maybe it's just me, but I would rather not be a part of that.
I know this post trailed off towards the end, I will dissect the three big issues in as much detail as I did the earlier issues if I get some good feedback, I also might start posting more regularly, though not as regularly as my other blog because a post like this is a little intense.
The truth is I am not apathetic to politics at all, I am very interested in it. I plan to pursue a career in politics (hopefully helping to craft a successful third party). I used to pay a lot more attention to the day to day of this political game until I realized what a waste of time buying into this sorry excuse for a political process is.
Here's how I see it: On one side you have this machine, the Republicans, who are clearly only interested in themselves. And on the other side you have a bunch of snobby liberals, the Democrats, who have become so inconsistent with liberal values it is disgusting. I am not represented by either of these horrific groups, so I will not vote.
Allow me to elaborate...
According to MSNBC the major issues are the Economy, Health Care, Energy?!, Immigration?!, and the Iraq War.
Education seems to have fallen off the radar completely. I guess the No Child Left Behind Act really did solve all of the problems in our Education system. That must be why there are sites, like this, dedicated to repealing this act. If you simply do a search for No Child Left Behind Act at http://news.google.com/ you will get several sources detailing the numerous pitfalls associated with this bill. This bill is not only actively decreasing the amount of funding and support given to the educational system, it is also a blatant abuse of federalism, which unfortunately is consistent with most of the laws created in the latter half of the 20th century. The point essentially is this, the federal government has become extremely power hungry. You know the tenth amendment, the one about the states, it's there for a reason. The states are in the best position to decide how to conduct themselves in areas other than National Defense. Several Republican candidates agree with this position, however they do not see it the way I do. I support block grants, unhindered funding which the state can use how they see fit. I think that the national government should still increase funding however they should not mandate how the funds are to be used. Most of the Democrats oppose NCLB but still think that the national government should solve the Education problem. Any plan formulated by the federal government to monitor education is a violation of the Constitution. Federalism is supposed to be a delicate balance where power is shared between the federal government and the states, but instead we have these leaders who ignore this aspect of our system completely and make statements and actions that are detrimental to this fragile balance that has served us so well in the past. Are you beginning to see why I can't vote?
My next target is the "Energy Debate", what debate? First of all, I'm not sure Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson actually believe in global warming, but this still should not deter them from reducing greenhouse gases. So this is the first point of this debate, all candidates will seek to reduce greenhouse emissions, this is obviously not an issue that will help you decide who to vote for, so why are we even discussing it? The next point is how to raise fuel efficiency, if at all. Most democratic candidates support raising the average fuel efficiency of vehicles by 2017 and they give arbitrary methods and benchmarks, very nice. The problem is that most also support the use of E85 fuel. Why is this a problem? Because people are starving somewhere. The strongest argument against E85 is not that it will significantly reduce gas mileage (as if that's not enough), it is that using corn to fuel all new cars will significantly raise demand for corn, which will significantly raise the price of corn. Don't take my word for it, China initiated a move to ethanol in 2001 and has already been forced to ban the use of grain due to adverse affects to the price of food. Sources are always good, an article from today in Down to Earth magazine supporting my claim. And one interesting article from the Economist with a few words about the global price of food. But these types of discussions of course are avoided by politicians, as that would require thought, not just rhetoric. Now the third point of the "Energy Debate", the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. This has been a topic of debate since the Carter years. I am very familiar with the topic due to an offbeat argument we used to use in policy debate in high school. For the most part Democrats are opposed and Republicans support drilling in ANWR, another central point in the current leadership (refusal to compromise). The truth is that there is no environmental reason against drilling in ANWR, it is a myth. An article from a Senator Murkowski in 2000 helps to explain. If you do research on the effect of Prudhoe Bay on Caribou, you will see that the population of Caribou has increased at a quicker pace since the drilling began. This is a strictly rhetorical argument by liberals that protects imaginary interests. It is trendy to say no to ANWR, but it is not helping the country. Don't vote on the "Energy Debate", it is all rhetoric and no impact.
Next, Immigration (let's get the easy ones out of the way first shall we?!), this should not take precedence over any of the other issues presented (except maybe Energy) so normally I would disregard it completely, but I'm in the mood to bash some arguments so here we go. I am going to approach the argument against illegal immigration as if it were a Kritik, if you are not familiar with this type of argument then you may want to briefly read the wikipedia article as I will use numerous terms from this article. The argument against immigration is that these people who should not be legally allowed in the country are costing us monetarily. Let's break this argument down. First we need to get the K (kritik) structure down, the link is obviously that the national government is responsible for protecting the border, the impact or implication is that it is costing taxpayers unnecessarily, but the alternative is not completely clear. So let's start with the alternative. The alternative proposed by almost all candidates is to increase border protection. Some say build a fence, some say there is new technology to help, in either case you are looking at increased cost to the taxpayers. Isn't that their only impact in the first place? Instead of helping these people, apparently we want to keep them out, even if it costs us more to do so. And how effective will "increased border protection" actually be in preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country? It is very easy to say things against illegal immigration, but is there actually a viable alternative? And do any of these candidates have any idea? I think not. And what about the fact that there may be benefits to illegal immigration (listen to Glenn Loury, a professor of Economics at Brown)?! So the first argument against this K is that the alternative bites the K, the alternative may not actually be effective in reducing illegal immigration and will also create a burden on taxpayers. This leads to the real argument I want to make, this issue destroys the framework of the election. There is no clear action that will resolve the burden on the taxpayers. Don't vote on this issue.
In the remaining three issues: Health Care, the Iraq War, and the Economy; Republicans and Democrats are just arguing for sake of argument, and have been for quite some time. Let's start with Health Care: Democrats support "socialized" health care and Republicans oppose due to free market ideals. First this is again a state issue, not a federal issue. And again I support block grants to the states to help solve this issue. Who represents the states? Oh yeah, congress, who apparently doesn't have a voice in this issue because the President will abuse his constitutional right to veto bills just for the sake of preventing action. Unless congress and the President work together, you know, compromise, this issue will never move forward. Next is the Economy: we have to cut spending, that's simple, it's also tied in with the war: the time has come for a viable exit strategy which will allow for a more balanced budget. There is a fundamental problem for our leaders with the exit from Iraq. A lot of economic growth is supported by military spending. A lot of people are employed in Iraq. When you cut military spending and deactivate 100,000+ troops you may cause a serious burden on the economy.
In the past leaders were willing to create social programs to help create jobs domestically (Eisenhower's Interstate Highway, FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society), ever since the Cold War escalated, however, we have favored military spending over this kind of domestic spending. It is time to shift back. There are many things that would be beneficial, such as a high speed rail system, and again this money could probably be better used by the states. We are without a leader who has a vision for improving our domestic infrastructure and we are therefore forced to choose between several bickering candidates who use rhetoric to win the masses but will arrive in Washington without a clear idea of how to progress. Maybe it's just me, but I would rather not be a part of that.
I know this post trailed off towards the end, I will dissect the three big issues in as much detail as I did the earlier issues if I get some good feedback, I also might start posting more regularly, though not as regularly as my other blog because a post like this is a little intense.
Labels: 2008, Democrats, election, politics, Republicans, vote
posted by drunknknite at 1:03 PM
3 Comments:
Hey!! Dude! You love Ron Paul and just don't know it! Everything you said is what Ron Paul believes. And I just really hope you do vote....and vote for freedom. Not to sound lame...but seriously...let freedom ring bra! :) Love your blog!
Peace,
Aimee Allen
Immigration?!
Chess is life?!
Life is chess!?
- Morgan Jones
i simply cannot recall when i have voted other than indepedent without some far off memory. this is some super weird oligopilization of power, where everybody is the same half baked representative of business as usual. count me out please, when i have the choice.
Post a Comment
<< Home