My Irrevocable Break With the Democratic Party: Introduction

Avatar

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

70 Responses

  1. Avatar Mo
    Ignored
    says:

    I hope to see Bill Clinton’s cookie recipe up against Frank Fiorina’s in the 2016 edition of Family Circle.Report

  2. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I suppose that in politics there are a lot of divisions between romantics and pragmatists/realists.

    The old joke for this is that “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.” Your intro seems to indicate that there is some truth to this old joke.

    People are probably pragmatic about some things in politics while being never endingly romantic about others. I certainly have my tendencies to disagree with certain segments of the Democratic Party like the DLC neo-liberal wing at time when they feel like they are speaking “hard truths” and being pragmatic.

    As far as I can tell, large segments of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party have always disliked retail politics. This was discussed on LGM over the weekend and on the Slate political gabfest when they were discussing Lessing’s one-campaign stunt about getting money out of politics. Jamelle Bouie expressed his dismay that the left seemingly is uninterested in local politics and rightly so. The right has been using local politics as a farm league for decades and it works to build up experienced candidates.

    Lots of people also place way too much emphasis in the bully pulpit. Presidents are not superpowered yet we seem to think they can will utopia into existence.Report

  3. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    Part of my unhappiness with Hillary in 08 was her embrace of the sleaziest crappist D political operatives. The DLC types who, while having some electoral success which shouldn’t be dismissed, also moved the D’s away from trying to solve the problems of the people who elected them.

    Hating on the D party apparatus is an old and respected tradition. It practically makes you a liberal. But for me, i vote on policies and whether i think they will be implemented, not whether i want to have a beer with someone or if their party if filled with jerks. I buy stuff from Amazon even though they seem to be filled with terrible people.Report

    • Avatar Chris in reply to greginak
      Ignored
      says:

      Ah yes, my other reason for never even considering voting for Clinton: I would never vote for anyone who’s hired Mark Penn.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        And we just posted the same things at the same time.

        So thirded, Mark Penn; five points for Slytherin.

        (I called it vegamitic voting blocks; follow the link to Penn’s book Microtrends; available in hardcover from amazon for $0.01 today.)Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        The Penn that’s crappier than the s-word.Report

      • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        @chris
        Yes, Clinton has hired Mark Penn.

        But, for example, compare Mark Penn to some of the people that Bush is hanging out with. Seriously, if we’re having a ‘what sort of dumb people they hang out with’ competition, it would be rather difficult for the Democrats to win that one. Some of the well-respected people on the Republican side are literally war criminals!

        I’m beginning to suspect I approach elections fundamentally different than other people here. I vote for the least bad person present on the ballot.

        I mean, I understand turnout and voter apathy and whatnot, but I’ve always associated that with people who didn’t actually care about politics.

        Are people just exaggerating here? Or talking just about the primary? Or what exactly?

        Seriously, guys. I agree nearly 100% with Tod here. (Except I never was a big fan of the Democratic party establishment to start with.) I’ve always thought the farther from the D establishment, the better. Clinton’s connection *to* the establishment, and previous indications she will hew to their line, are what make me question some of her new supposedly populist positions.

        I will almost certainly vote for someone else in the primary, probably Sanders. I might even do it as a bit of a protest vote even if Sanders has technically dropped out by then.

        And then, when the election rolls around and Clinton’s almost certainly on the ballot, I’m voting for her. And, no, this isn’t a ‘holding my nose’ thing. The question is would I rather have her than anyone is the R’s put up, and the answer is ‘hell yes’. 100 times yes.

        ‘Holding your nose’ is what you do when there’s a third party on the ballot and you’d really rather they win, but you don’t want the worst guy to win because you did that, so you vote for the guy who has a chance. And it’s what you do when you select someone who will be completely horrible, but the other guy is literally a mass murderer or something. You hold your nose and vote for Trump because the Democrats accidentally nominated Charles Manson somehow.

        I’m just sorta watching this discussion and completely amazed. I don’t even understand how people can operate like this, and I don’t understand how all this is anywhere near as personal as people seem to think it.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to DavidTC
          Ignored
          says:

          In fairness David, both the OP and a lot of the comments (though not all) note that they hold their nose and vote Democratic. That said they aren’t required to identify as Democratic Party supporters nor be volubly supportive of the establishment candidate. Bernie is just as much a Democrat as Hillary is.Report

        • Avatar greginak in reply to DavidTC
          Ignored
          says:

          What North said. I very much disliked who Hillary surrounded herself with and i would voted for her in a second over McCain or Romney. But if the choice is about which Dem to support then looking at the crew each person puts around them is a reasonable point.Report

        • Avatar Chris in reply to DavidTC
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m beginning to suspect I approach elections fundamentally different than other people here.

          Of that I have no doubt.

          On the off chance I’ll vote next year, it will be third party. But I live in Texas, so it won’t matter anyway (which is to say, it won’t matter at all instead of mattering an amount statistically indistinguishable from not mattering at all).Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to greginak
      Ignored
      says:

      Part of my unhappiness with Hillary in 08 was her embrace of the sleaziest crappist D political operatives.

      Bingo. Agreed.Report

  4. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    Thank you, @tod-kelly

    I don’t want to convince anyone to like her; there are things I don’t like about her, too. Mark Penn? Did you read his book released at the time? Vegimatic voting blocks, more useful to Amazon.com marketing practices then POTUS politics I think. The Iraq vote’s obviously an issue. With the Hillary Doctrine, I want to hear her views on how military action fits into that doctrine — as a driver or a supporting tool.Report

  5. Avatar Richard Hershberger
    Ignored
    says:

    the Republican Media Machine has gone out of its way to vilify Clinton over the past several decades.

    Are we including the New York Times in the Republican Media Machine? I’m not necessarily arguing against this, other than the NYT being slightly more subtle than the [rest of the] RMM.Report

  6. Avatar Vikram Bath
    Ignored
    says:

    From Our Tod’s 10 commandments:

    Basketball is treasured above all other Sports, and those who watch it are blessed – unless they root for teams owned by Donald Sterling.

    He wrote that more than two years before the Don Sterling tapes came out. He singled out no other owners.

    Rejoice! For he is surely Our Tod.Report

  7. Avatar LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    My feeling is that a lot of people are more hard on the Democratic Party for it’s fault across the political lines than the Republican Party for it’s fault. To conservatives, the Democratic Party is a revolutionary far leftist party out to destroy the Constitution and the American way of life. We are little better than Communist revolutionaries. To leftists, the Democratic Party is still the hypocritical party of Tammany Hall that doesn’t mean a thing that they say. This is despite making real big political sacrifices to get the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act passed during the 1960s and sticking by them while being attacked for being soft on crime during the 1970s and 1980s. More recently, the Democratic Party again sacrificed itself to get the ACA passed. They might see the Republican Party has fascist but they at least believe them to be sincere in their fascism. It has been this way since at least the late 19th century.Report

  8. Avatar Michael Cain
    Ignored
    says:

    I look forward to this. My own situation? problem? whatever is that every online questionnaire tells me that I’m a liberal, even though all of them leave me frowning and saying, “But you’re not asking the right questions!” It’s not so much that I agree with the current Dems on my peculiar set of issues as that I feel like the Dems are capable of learning, while the national Republicans (Congress, essentially all of the current Presidential candidates) have lost their freaking minds and are incapable of learning anything.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      I remember the one that told me that if I thought the government shouldn’t restrict abortion then I was a liberal, and if I thought anything else then I was engaging in “severe cognitive dissonant behavior” and should seek therapy.Report

      • Avatar DavidTC in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        ‘How dare a conservative think the government should not interfere in the personal lives of people! The government meddling in people’s private lives is a fundamental principle of conservationism!’

        Wait, I screwed that up. Let me try again.

        ‘How dare a conservative think the government should not interfere in the personal lives of women! The government meddling in women’s private lives is a fundamental principle of conservationism!’Report

  9. Avatar Doctor Jay
    Ignored
    says:

    I am of the opinion that pretty much everyone depends heavily on irrational, emotional and subconscious motivations to make most, if not all, of their decisions.

    Spending my life as a math guy, I’ve learned to move some of that decision making process to a more calculated effort, but that’s only because doing so makes me feel warm and fuzzy, which is an emotional and irrational (or perhaps arational) motivation for doing so.

    Nevertheless, when I voted for Bill Clinton, it was because his policy choices aligned better with mine, and I was very unhappy with GHW Bush over Clarence Thomas. I had no illusion that Bill was going to be my friend, or that we were going to share a beer or something. His voice was pleasant enough to listen to, and I’ll tell you straight up that is a factor. However, Hillary’s voice also does not bother me, not in the way that, say, Joe Lieberman’s does.

    So, of course you have an emotional, subconscious and non-rational reason for disliking Hillary Clinton. But what is it? That’s something that I never can understand…Report

  10. Avatar krogerfoot
    Ignored
    says:

    Part of the thing with Hillary is the old traditional Democratic defensive crouch or preemptive cringe or whatever it is, where we have to clear our throats for fifteen minutes before we state our positions. I don’t love the idea of another Clinton vs. Bush matchup, but if those are my choices, I know which family I want in the White House.

    I think it’s good for the Ds not to love their candidate. A lot of the ones that loved Obama are now operatically crestfallen and disgusted with him, and will stay that way no matter what he delivers. With the Clintons, if you were an adult during those years, you knew they were not wonderful people, but you also knew that their political opponents did not merely oppose them—they wanted the Clinton family to be torn limb from limb by wild dogs. A certain amount of fatigue sets in after decades of fending off deranged attacks on people who you know, in the end, will let you down.

    Of course, all bets are off if the left decides to go full lunacy and abandon the Ds’ candidate for another Nader. If Team Blue hands the White House to Team Red’s “Take Back the Country Or Destroy It Trying” faction, I give up.Report

    • Avatar InMD in reply to krogerfoot
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m not a Democrat but I hear this sentiment often and don’t really understand it. From the perspective of people further to the left the Democratic party takes their votes for granted then forgets about them once they’re in office.

      Maybe if pressed lefties of that variety would see a centrist Democrat as the lesser of two evils but if they fall in line without getting anything in return don’t they render themselves electorally impotent? You’re also making the assumption that the left really identifies with the Democrats which I’m not sure is true. Republicans may treat the Democratic party as the red vanguard but really it’s a pretty muddled somewhat conservative (in the small ‘c’ sense) party by international standards. That’s how I’d imagine the hard left sees them anyway.Report

      • Avatar krogerfoot in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        I didn’t think I was assuming anything. I know the hard left doesn’t identify with the Ds that much. I agree with what you say about getting taken for granted (and I understand you’re not a Democrat, so I’m not saying “you” are specifically being taken for granted), and that has always been a problem for the left. The hard left is more and more treating people like me as their primary enemy, for not being 100% on board whatever it is that they profess to be passionate about since lunchtime. I’m old enough and far away enough to feel less and less guilty about not caring what a lot of those people think.

        The left has been in this pickle for generations now—we cannot elect who(m) we really want, so we elect the closest we can get, and keep trying to move the ball down the field. The US and A has a long way to go to be a liberal paradise, but if I could go back in time to tell my idiot bedreadlocked 22-year-old self that I’d live to see the day that Americans could both afford to go to the doctor and get gay-married, my younger self would spill his Mickey’s Bigmouth laughing and point at the TV, to Pat Buchanan talking at the RNC.Report

        • Avatar InMD in reply to krogerfoot
          Ignored
          says:

          Fair enough points, the reason I thought you were making that assumption was based on the Nader reference. And maybe you’re right, that the hard left doesn’t give the Democrats enough credit for those things they do achieve. Of the two you listed I think the D’s do deserve a lot of credit for moving the ball in a big way on healthcare but I’d actually give them a lot less on SSM. My recollection is thats an issue Obama and most powerful Democrats evolved on. The heavy lifting was done by activists at the state level, even if most Democrats ultimately embraced it.Report

          • Avatar zic in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            I’d agree: the Ds get credit on health care; they followed culture on SSM, at least at the National level; state-level Ds get credit in a few places; here in ME, the state legislature adopted SSM. It got thrown out on referendum, and in a follow-up referendum, the voters adopted it; one of the first states to approve SSM by voters instead of legislature or court.

            At the national level, I think real ‘support’ came from a Joe Biden gaffe. Biden: the antiTrump.Report

            • Avatar krogerfoot in reply to zic
              Ignored
              says:

              These are good points, and you guys are right about the grassroots activism on SSM that did the heavy lifting*. In the end, though, an argument about who gets credit goes nowhere. If there’s a border between the left and the Democrats, it’s an extremely blurry one.

              * Offhand, I’d say this is the rule rather than the exception.Report

              • Avatar zic in reply to krogerfoot
                Ignored
                says:

                I also have some concern about issue loyalty as a filter for candidate loyalty. Candidates should, I think, evolve on issues. If candidate X didn’t support your issue at some time in the past, do they now? Do you have information that suggest it’s real support and not just optics, asserted, but without action or real commitment?

                A politician’s evolution on issues seems much more important than purity to ideology to me. GWB’s presidency was a colossal clusterfish; but by the end of it, he saw that he had to distance himself from Cheney. It was too late, but I’ll give him credit for growing to recognize that; for his evolving thought.Report

              • Avatar krogerfoot in reply to zic
                Ignored
                says:

                I also have some concern about issue loyalty as a filter for candidate loyalty. Candidates should, I think, evolve on issues. If candidate X didn’t support your issue at some time in the past, do they now?

                Absolutely. Maybe this is an unfair caricature of the US activist left, but I would not fall out of my chair to hear an argument from that side of the street that we should not support candidate X, even though he/she agrees with us and supports our cause, because at some point in the past he/she did not. I can’t say I’ve heard exactly that, but there is a kind of “We demand an apology, which we shall never accept!” mindset that drives me up walls. That’s sorta what I meant earlier about not loving your candidate.Report

          • Avatar North in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            InMD there’s active support and passive support. The party was very gun shy on active embracing but a lot of the progress that SSM made, it made while the Democratic Party blocked and deflected the actions of SSM opponents. That is not quite marching at the lead of the gay pride parade but it sure as hell isn’t nothing.Report

            • Avatar InMD in reply to North
              Ignored
              says:

              I would agree that they don’t deserve 0 credit just that the heavy lifting was done by people other than the establishment (maybe national is a better word) party. They definitely got on board once it became safer to do so politically and good for them but it’s the folks who were filing challenges in court and making the case for it before it was popular who should get the props.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        @inmd

        I think this goes to pragmatic v. romantic again. Is it better to get a bit of what you want and compromise (the ugly reality of politics) or is it better not to get anything but keep a sense of purity?

        I don’t have much patience for people who make politics about showing how pure they are (both on the left and the right). There is something very unattractive about needing to be “holier than thou”. Politics is nasty, there are 300 million people in the United States and anyone who thinks that they can always be in the majority is a loon. It also silly to think that we can always have consensus.

        That being said, the DLC wing does do the “adults in the room” thing too much.Report

        • Avatar InMD in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          @saul-degraw I guess I would object to the characterization of pragmatic versus romantic (at least in this particular context). From my perspective it’s more a question about priorities and what a given voter or group finds to be most important.

          The most important issues for me, for example, could broadly be called civil liberties and oposition to endless military adventurism. I may generally agree with many Democrats on the need to maintain a social safety net and for government programs to ensure a sufficient level of economic well-being among all for democracy to function. However the Democratic party is, at best, an extremely unreliable ally on those former issues that are most important to me. The issues I agree with them most on in theory are the same issues they are most willing to compromise on in practice.

          Now you’re absolutely correct that at some point politics is about rolling up your sleeves, making compromises, and doing the best you can with what you’ve got. But that can be a hard pill to swallow for those whose priorities are always the ones that are given away at the bargaining table and I dont think finding it offputting is just the result of romanticism.Report

          • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            The Democratic Party may not be the best on civil liberties but they are much better than the Republicans on endless military adventurism. Obama has use diplomacy and negotiations to solve to big problems in American foreign policy, Cuba and Iran’s nuclear arsenal. He has also been reluctant to send in the troops when the Republicans would have done so with glee like the conflict with ISIL.

            A big problem with civil liberties in politics is that they really are a low priority for the average voter as broadly understood. An individual might care about a particular civil liberty with earnestness like a transgender person being deeply into transgender rights. Very few people are going to broadly passionate about all civil liberties though, particular the ones that benefit the accused. Politicians act accordingly. Even considering this, the Democratic Party is a lot better than the Republicans.Report

            • Avatar InMD in reply to LeeEsq
              Ignored
              says:

              I think that is an overstatment. Obama is certainly better than, for example, George Bush was in that he has not overseen an unmitigated disaster on par with the Iraq invasion but that is a very low bar. He pushed hard for involvement in Syria and was only thwarted by a mix of hostile public sentiment and the fact that Republicans in Congress wouldn’t approve intervention on the terms he wanted. The intervention in Libya has been a miserable failure for all of those Libyans we were supposed to be protecting and has left a barely contained vortex of chaos in North Africa. His drone warfare policies are problematic from both an executive power perspective and the fact that they’re contributing to the further destabilization of already fragile or disintegrating countries like Yemen and Pakistan. I will give credit where credit is due on Iran and Cuba but I think his record is at best very mixed.

              But all of that is besides the point. The point is that one can agree with the Democrats on some policies but still refuse to support them based on where they set their priorities and the manner in which they often govern. Take people whose main interest is reigning in Wall Street and fighting to ensure a reasonable standard of living. Sure, they’re not going to vote for Marco Rubio but are they really supposed to support Hilary Clinton, a politician who based on her record and associations is as in the pocket of Wall Street and corporate money as any other establishment politician?

              It’s all a question of priorities and it’s perfectly grounded to chose not to vote for a politician who puts yours low on their list, regardless of what else you might agree on.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          Then maybe the Liberal wing shouldn’t indulge in being the “children in the room” so much Saul.Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to krogerfoot
      Ignored
      says:

      The old “you can tell a lot about a person by the friends they keep, and even more by the enemies they accumulate “Report

  11. Avatar Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    I should have added earlier today: I’m really looking forward to this. Selfishly so.

    My own ambivalence about the Democratic party is pretty illogical, given my policy preferences. And the basis for that ambivalence is something I have a lot of trouble articulating, perhaps precisely because it is an irrational thing going on rather deep within my mind.

    So maybe Our Tod can point me in a good direction for my own thought.Report

  12. Avatar Alan Scott
    Ignored
    says:

    Re: first lady cookie contest:
    Anyone who has not watched the Pie-mary episode of Parks & Recreation should watch more Parks & Recreation.

    Re: Tod vs. Hillary.

    Tod Kelly made an incredibly persuasive case that Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinski demonstrated that he was unfit to be president of the united states–and further, that the manner in which the Democratic party jumped to Clinton’s defense was an abandonment of important liberal principles to play a game of team blue vs. team red. I am overwhelmingly convinced by his argument.

    While the argument he made is backed up by carefully reasoned logic, I would be entirely unsurprised if its genesis was entirely in feelings and that the carefully reasoned logic got added after the fact. Because frankly, that’s how feelings are supposed to work. Intuition is a powerful and useful tool, and Tod’s intuition is shaped by his professional experience.

    The one place, though, where Tod’s argument seems to escape carefully reasoned logic entirely is in his feelings about Hillary. His criticism of Bill and the Dems is spot on, but his criticism of Hillary basically relies on her sharing the guilt with either her husband or her party, and the case for her culpability is pretty weak.

    I think, though, that leads to two equally possible circumstances: that Tod has been brainwashed in the way Zic suggests, or that Tod’s intuition is just as right about this part, but there’s not the obvious evidents to construct a post-hoc logically reasoned argument the way that he did about Bill and the Party.

    As for myself, my feelings about Hillary are related to gut feelings and intuition that are in turn informed by personal experience.

    I know several incredibly capable professional women who exist in male-dominated fields. Because of the barriers they faced, they had to step on a lot of toes to get where they are. They are people who had to be a little bit too loud to get taken seriously, and now that they _are_ taken seriously, haven’t really managed the transition to talking at a normal volume–in some sense, it’s a failure of social nuance–but it’s a failure on a test their male colleagues never had to take.

    Hillary reminds me _a lot_ of those women. To the extent that she comes of as slightly rude or “fake”, it’s a turn-on rather than a turn-off for me. “I don’t have the patience to deal with this bullshit” may not, politically speaking, be the best attitude for a potential POTUS to have–but it’s one that, in this context, makes me want her as our next POTUS.Report

  13. Avatar Michael Drew
    Ignored
    says:

    Just to be clear, zic didn’t ask us to reflect on how the media campaign against Hillary has affected our feelings about the Democratic party leadership (however we define that). She asked us to reflect on how it has affected our views about Hillary Clinton. Tod says the closest he can come is to assess the effect on his view of the Democratic leadership (of the campaign against Hillary, or of something broader? Unclear.) Fair enough. (I don’t quite get why he can’t work to separate them given that’s the ask, but fair enough.)

    But it’s not the actual thing zic asked us to do, let’s be clear. She asked us to consider how our feelings about Hillary have been affected by the campaign against her. (Which, if the idea is that it’s thought to be an effect greater than the effect of other media campaigns against other politicians, we’re being asked to consider giving Hillary a break as against whatever negative views we have of her sloshing around in our heads that other politicians needn’t get. I’m unclear how much of a break zic gives, or thinks we should give, to each and every major politician depending on the size of the media campaigns that have been waged against them. But I have to doubt she’d write the post calling for this reflection re Hillary if she didn’t think it should be (sorry: that we should consider whether it should be) a singularly bigger break for Hillary than for others. But she can tell us.)Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Michael Drew
      Ignored
      says:

      Well, there are a few reasons for this:

      1. What zic did, I thought, was ask me to unpack why I dislike and/or are distrustful of Clinton — not on the surface, but at a very primal and reptilian-brain level; this is what I am doing, in my own way.

      I do not know that I can do what zic is asking me to do and only unpack factoids about Hillary and nothing else, because that’s not how that part of my brain works. I do not have the advantage others enjoy of having a subconscious mind that works only via informed reason and rational thought. Call it one of my many short comings, but I gotta go with the wee brain I’ve been dealt.

      2. Having yet another prolonged conversation with everyone here about whether or not it’s “correct” to trust what kind of a person someone who we know entirely from media campaigns crafted by employees and enemies is was fun for about five minutes, and for me that five minutes was back in 2014.

      3. I thought I was being fairly clear that I was using a thread of zic’s post to pivot and talk about something else that’s related. Since I guess I wasn’t, I’ll say it more directly:

      I’m using a thread of zic’s post to pivot and talk about something else that’s related.Report

      • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        No, you were clear. And it’s a totally legitimate pivot. I just wasn’t clear exactly why you views about her are so inextricably bound up with your feelings about Dem party leadership (both or either of which you or we may have irrational subconscious thoughts about separately or together). Bound up, I get. Inextricably, I didn’t. But you explained it some more (which you didn’t have to do), so now I get it a little better.

        But I wanted to be clear about what zic asked of us.Report

      • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        …Also, I should say, I agree with Burt: I find the project you’ve laid out to be more interesting than if you were working just to focus on Hillary. I’m looking forward to it as well.Report

  14. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    And it is reported on as serious news by so-called serious, so-called liberally-biased media.

    That Time story seemed pretty tongue in cheek to me.Report

  15. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    I have a lot of mixed feelings about the Democratic Party too. Them I remember how unlikely RBG is to be on the Court for another four years and consider the near-certainty that she’d be replaced by a 40-year old who makes John Roberts look like Thurgood Marshall, and conclude that I would vote for Rod Fishing Blagojevich before I’d consider a Republican.Report

  16. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    “why I hate the idea of supporting those who I feel are the most emblematic of its corrupt leadership apparatus.”

    Sounds like you realized that politicians are politicians first. That’s a good awakening. No difference on either side. I’m sure you could write this from the other side and say the exact same thing but replace Clinton with Bush or anyone else. Everything is propaganda. Distrust them all. Members of the “machine” of politics are all the same and are interchangeable.Report

  17. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    There are a lot of benefits to voting, at the end of the day. Civic engagement, making your voice heard, voting “yes” on Amendment 64… if you’re very lucky, you walk out of there with some endorphins.

    Given the whole “statistically meaningless” thing that goes with how and whether one’s vote changes an election one way or the other, one of the biggest sources of endorphins is “how do I view myself after how I voted?”

    I can easily see someone reaching the conclusion “Having voted for this particular politician, I very much dislike the light that I now see myself in.” (I’ve done it myself.)

    The thought “Hey, don’t blame me… I voted for Earl Dodge!” can be a fairly pleasant thought when one sees, for example, “Kinetic Military Action” on the front page. Beyond that, when one sees (over and over and over again) that sort of thing happen, it’s the easiest thing in the world to move to “I am not the type of person who votes for these kind of people.”Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *