Tuesday, November 07, 2006

on politics

Not that I care very much, my only real political conviction is to be pro-life, but the elections are today and I love a good fight as much as the next man. I will be up front: I'll never be able to understand the appeal of Republicanism. The only thing they've got going for them is that many are vocally against abortion, though there are few pieces of legislation against abortion which could stand the scrutiny of a court challenge, and some are against stem-cell research, though I do admit that I haven't found one yet who is enthusiastically for it like some members of the Democrat Party. However ineffective I think their policy solutions are, however, I do admit that if one thinks, say, their fiscal and educational policies will obtain results -- which I doubt and is the reason I can't see the appeal -- one could broadly identify with the party. Really, party identification is less about ideology, since American parties are not ideological parties, but about class and social identification.

But I want to comment on this mutual incomprehension. Though I do not understand the appeal of Republicanism, I couldn't go so far as the typical sort of tripe thrown out at dKos -- I'm not talking about the BUSHITLER school of trash talk, but the sincere people who think anybody who votes for a Republican is an evil and deluded fool or the sort who jokingly yet earnestly can ask if there is any reason to vote Republican at all. Though I admit I don't see the appeal, I can certainly find reasons. On the other side, the web-loggers for some rag could not see the parallel between Clinton-bashing and Bush-bashing, taking paragraphs to draw a distinction between the two that I am not convinced the removal of ideological blinders could preserve. I must admit, the obscene villification of the current administration beyond mere disapproval of its policies is the second most off-putting aspect about liberalists [the first being enthusiastic support for abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, etc], but it is common to both sides. What a great falling-out there was? Ah, political difference. What joy.

Anyways, I do not see how a man of good conscience could vote for either candidate for governor of Illinois. One of the current debates is using state funds for embryonic stem-cell research. Both are for embryonic stem-cell research, the only difference is that the Republican may not be sure it is the best use of state resources, though she has stated she wants Illinois to be a "hub" for such research.

Anyways, I'm taking a week off work starting today because I'll be travelling from Thursday to Monday and I somehow decided that mandated taking Tuesday and Wednesday off.

EDIT: Democrats for Life has a helpful listing of pro-life races to watch tonight for those who are interested in pro-life Democrats. The Republicans don't provide a similar service.

6 comments:

Mr. G. Z. T. said...

I would never fault anyone for being a "values voter", as they're sometimes called. It's merely an appeal I don't feel and I am perhaps too cynical to take any party's stance at face-value if taking it wins some votes. But anyways, I'm still puzzled by the failure to see Bush-bashing as parallel to Clinton-bashing.

Caelius said...

"Anyways, I do not see how a man of good conscience could vote for either candidate for governor of Illinois. "

What if you don't believe that zygotes have souls?

Mr. G. Z. T. said...

What do souls have to do with opposition to embryonic stem cell research?

Caelius said...

Do you mean that your objections to stem cell research have nothing to do with preserving unborn life?

Mr. G. Z. T. said...

I mean that they can be stated in secular terms.

Mr. G. Z. T. said...

Wait, I might have to rethink things. 7, eh?