Sense? Sense? Who Needs Sense?

Last night, I got in to an argument with a friend about politics. Of course about politics. The conversation started even because I was remarking how strange it is that people get so emotionally attached to their candidates of choice. I've been checking political blogs when I procrastinate these days and -- republican or democrat -- once they pick a candidate, they make talk about rational discourse but little of what they say is rational discourse. They accuse the other side of calling each other names by calling each other names.

Though I like to think I'm not a person who does this, I probably do. . . except I'd like to think I'm not a person who does this and I try very hard to not be a person who does this. I know we're supposed to be humble and assume that we all have flaws -- which I know I do -- but do all our flaws have to be the same flaws?

The conversation last night got really heated when my friend accused me of propagating the same old partisan politics because I said that I wouldn't vote for someone because he is a Republican. . . He said it was lazy, destructive thinking. I think I especially go balistic if someone accuses me personally of not thinking right. I spend a lot of time thinking. I can justify my thoughts until the second Tuesday in October for anyone who wants to sit around that long and listen. I know that doesn't make the thoughts rational but I doubt that someone should accuse me of anything with my thinking since I don't know their thought process and I make no claims to no it.

I'd like to say I was on the high road. I don't remember accusing my friend of thinking any particular way. I know that I criticized his willingness to vote for a Republican this year. I know that I said that this year -- of all years - regardless of who the Republican is, you simply can't vote for him. I realize that someone might get their dander up on that statement. It certainly is confrontational. (You! Don't do what you are about to do! You can't! Or you're an idiot! -- Full disclosure. I never said the word idiot but its hard not to sound like you're saying it anyway in a heated argument.) However, regardless of how difficult the statement is, it makes no presumptions about the person who is the recipient of the statement. It's a personal thesis to the speaker with an argument to support it. It has nothing to do with "partisan" politics or culture wars or other symbolic political statements. (More than half of all politics now is symbolic and it makes me want to cry.)

For what its worth, the argument is this: Republicans have been responsible for a variety of governmental disasters in the last -- depending on your perspective -- seven, ten, fifteen, or twenty-seven years. You can point to a list. Iraq was a dumb war. Katrina was mismanaged. Cutting services in a variety of areas of the federal government has led to problems in sectors that the media never talks about. Time wasted arguing about homosexual marriage instead of doing something about health care. Not doing anything about health care, energy, education, etc., etc. This are real things -- not symbols. If it was later in the day, I could even make the list bullet points and more concrete. The current Republican leadership is demonstrably incompetent, ignorant, arrogant, and disingenuous (Have they actually done anything about gay marriage and abortion besides talk about it to rile up some folks?). Also hypocritical and in some cases criminal. A list can be made.

Therefore, for at least the forseeable future, I wouldn't vote for any of the people involved in these instances. And, at this point, even though I have always believed that people can have philosophical political differences, anyone who doesn't disassociate themselves from these malevolent fucks -- even people who don't agree but still think of themselves as republicans -- has to be lumped in with them. I don't think this is always the case but I think a fairly rational case can be made that this is the case right now. At this point in time, a pox on you and your entire house regardless of whether the people living in one of the bedrooms secretly, really secretly, doesn't agree with all the ways in which you've fucked up the country. A few years ago you could hope that those people might take over the house. At this point, they have to take over the house without any help from my hoping, before I'll set foot near that neighborhood again.

That's the argument why I won't vote for a republican. Honestly, what the fuck is irrational about that? OK. You can disagree with the conclusion but its an entirely fair conclusion, isn't it?

Surprisingly, I guess people would rather be idealists or symbolists. "You can't make such bold generalizations. It just contributes to partisan politics." One -- we weren't talking about partisan politics. Two - yes, at some point, it is fair to make generalizations. When you have a large enough sample set, yes. . . O, and here's the one that really kills me. "O, you think the Democrats would be better? You really think they wouldn't do the same corrupt things." -- You know. . . Well. . . Probably they'd do different corrupt things . . . but. . . Here's the thing. . . I don't know! There is no evidence on their side because they've basically been out of power -- except when Clinton was president. The economy was good. And they were cleared of every accusation except lying about getting a blowjob. -- so well, it's a limited sample set. I won't even use it as evidence. My point is -- It's time to find out what they do. Stick with the evidence. The evidence doesn't prove to me that they would be as asshole-ish and incompetent as the Republicans. Nor, I suppose, does it prove to me that they won't. I refuse to say either way because I don't know. With the GOP, you know.

Evidence not idealism or cynicism or symbolism. . . But I'm probably just being emotinally irrational myself. (By the way, can't we make a rational argument emotionally? Do you have to sound like Spock from Star Trek in order to sound like you've thought through the evidence and come to conclusions based on reason? Also, by the way, we need emotions in order to be reasonable. . . I read that in a long scientific book somewhere though I honestly can't remember any part of the argument. . . But, I'm sure its true, I am. . . cause. . . you know. . . I vaguely remember it. . .

You know you should stop writing when you're using ellipses the same way you would run out of steam in speaking "Um. . . OK. . . So, . . my point is. . . what I just said. . . I mean. . . that's what I'm saying. . ."

Thank you. Good Morning