My Manifesto (Or Just More NOISE?)

Recently, I found myself trying to summarize my core political beliefs.

Without further ado, here goes:






I truly believe most all politicians are lying-assed ambitious bastards, regardless of party affilliation.

I believe that the GOP is not necessarilly the "Conservative" party and that the DNC is not necessarilly the "Liberal" party.

I believe that people tend to put way too much stock in either Label. Both are too subjective and warped beyond the historic meanings.

I think that one of the bizzare but important major difference between GOP and DNC pols is that more GOP pols will lie about being cons than DNC will about being libs; GOPers need to call themselves that (more often), in order to get elected, but DNCers don't have to declare themselves libs to get elected.

They will get branded as such by the GOP in attack ads, so they really don't have to declare it leave alone lie about it.


I believe the so called neocons are neither; they are old fashioned colonialists and imperialists, who are not being terribly honest about being that.

I believe that Bush is not a real Con (even if it is hard to say what that is, anymore, as the meaning of that has been warped beyond its historical meaning) but at best he is a member of the republican money elite (the Plutocrats), who has learned how to talk the talk, and pander enough to get the support of people who call themselves Cons.

I believe the War on Terror took a seriously wrong turn with the invasion of Iraq.

I believe Afghanistan is slipping into something of a critical failure, with too many of the Taliban/Al Qada still being alive, and living in the borderlands, and too much of the country being dedicated to the opium trade.

I belive that everyone is entitled to their personal religious beliefs, but the minute they start trying to get the gvt. to cater to it, is the minute they become obnoxious.

Following that up, given how many Americans are religious, and how many faiths and sub faiths are practiced, and the fact that one has to be a wacko cult before the gvt. starts knocking on your door, I believe that anyone who thinks religions or religious values are under assault in America, is not dealing with reality and is ignoring the facts.

I believe a Dem pol is more likely to lie about personal stuff, and a GOP pol is more likely to lie about "on the job" stuff. I am not saying by a WIDE margin, but I see a pattern there.

I truly believe that when religion and politics are merged, that the only net result is religion gets debased, and politics gets more personal and ugly. I further believe the GOP leaders know that, and rely on it . . . that last part at least.

I believe that passionate emotional rhetoric in politics (to be specific, demagogery) is more of a danger to the American way of life, than terrorism.

I admit that the DNC message is stale, and needs to be retooled and repackaged, some, but I believe that if the DNC picks up too many of the GOP rhetorical tricks, the party will suffer. Well, maybe not at the polls, but I don't want to see the DNC go that way too much.

Pandering does suck, I think!

I believe that even if Foxnews (barely) qualifies as a legitimate news outfit, they have nearly singlehandedly lowered the bar for what passes as professional journalism in this country by deliberately blurring the distinction between reporting and commentary to a new level of confusion and partisanship.

I believe in free speech, but I think somebody like Hannity or Rush should not be treated as entertainers, or infotainers, but as political operatives, and forced to comply with Federal and State Campaign Finance Laws. (that one just came to me now.) And if Foxnews doesn't clean up their act, I want them regulated that way too. Ok, I will throw in Air America too, just to be fair. I agree with some people's opinions that Randi Rhodes is the Left's Answer to Hannity. Same crap and tactics, different slant.

I believe that the GOP is the PRO Business, All The Way, party. I also believe the DNC is the slightly less enthuastic Pro Business Party.

I believe that anyone who does not want to have an abortion should not have to have an abortion, and that those who want one should be left alone.

If people are ALL THAT concerned with other peoples' sinning and immortal souls, they should get their butts away from the abortion clinics, go to the inner city and follow around the Gangsters and Drug Dealers and Murderers and Muggers and Rapists, and try to talk those sinners out of their sinning ways and save their souls. Picking on women who for the most part are already distressed is not doing God's Work. It is merely being obnoxious, Just My Opinion. (Admittedly, the second part of that one came to me just now, and I am not being strictly serious there. I am making the point that if one is so concerned about other people committing sin, there is a LOT more sin happening all over the place than at the increasingly-few abortion clinics in America. I find it bizzare, even if obviously explainable, why people who claim to be interested in saving people from sin tend to target the most emotionally-vulnerable and least violent sinners, for face to face confrontations.)

I believe P.J. O'Rourke was dead on, when he said that "Republicans run on the issue that gvt. doesn't work, get elected, and prove it."

I believe that Social or Culture Conservatives really have no business voting GOP, but I understand that the GOP at least pays lip service to those issues that Social and Cultural Cons favor; they just so rarely do anything more than pay lip service to those issues. That is my point.

I think that Cons are more likely to take the label way too seriously. Cons are more likely to think of that label as having some sort of meaning in their life beyond it being a mere philosophical (in the broadest sense of the word) preference, and a "world view." I think it is more likely to be considered a defining characteristic for Cons. But for Libs the label is more of "an attitude" and philosophical view; it doesn't really mean much more to us than that.

I think the "Culture war" is demagogery, if not grossly exaggerated twaddle. Yes, I know some people take that stuff seriously; I think it is mostly the political equal of Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. And by that I mean, in almost all of human history, in likely every human society, there have always been people preoccupied with such things. It is old, unoriginal, and basically tiresome to me.

And speaking of demogogery, I am not saying it is only used by the GOP, but I do say this:

The GOP is way more skilled and successful at it.


I think the most intelligent thing I have heard anyone say about American Politics recently is what I heard this guy say on NPR or CSPAN (don't remember which) radio over the the past couple days; the main diff. between the GOP and the DNC is the GOP is better at communicating to its base's emotions, but the DNC is more likely to focus on policies and programs.

My translation of that is the GOP goes for the gut and keeps it simple, where the DNC talks about gvt. programs and that really is not appealing to many Americans. Like the famous quote by Otto von Bismark (and I paraphrase) the more you know about how sausages and laws are made, the less you will like them.

And let's remember that there is a word that describes communicating effectively at the emotional or gut level: Demagogery*.

Ultimately I think politics (and gvt.) are so deep in bullshit that that is the best way to describe either. However, it is important bullshit as opposed to most bullshit, which is usually meaningless shit.




*Demagogery
Definition
demagogue, US ALSO demagog

noun [C] DISAPPROVING
a person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting people's emotions rather than by having good ideas
(Cambridge International Dictionary of English)