And May I Just Put in a Word...

I periodically read scathing remarks from self-described liberals chastising anyone who doesn't want to vote for Obama this year. This morning I read some comments shredding someone who wrote a column about why he couldn't vote for Obama and was going to vote for Gary Johnson instead. Many of the comments were probably correct in questioning the vote for Gary Johnson, but most of them were nasty in tone, pointing out what a waste of space the writer is. Here's a sample:

“And so, after much reflection and navel gazing, Conor has concluded that he shall  cast his lot for, and snuggle into, the warm and wooly moral embrace of  Ron Paul Lite Gary Johnson because the actual symbolism of voting for Johnson will form an impenetrable protective shield over Pakistani civilians and then Conor can sleep better at night knowing that he has symbolically prolonged a life as opposed to, you know, voting for someone who is actually going to be President and actually, you know, do an actual stuff in the real world. “

  TBogg

“[...] the actual symbolism of voting for Johnson will form an impenetrable protective shield over Pakistani civilians and then Conor can sleep better at night.” Gold. Because it’s apparently not really about policies that affect others; no, it’s all about how Conor feels about Conor’s feelings and things that matter most to Conor in that cute abstract and privileged way. Not that there’s anything wrong with all of that if you happen to be Conor, but it sure as hell doesn’t mean anyone else should follow his advice.

"Not really about policies that affect others." So, apparently, it's okay to vote for Obama in order to (supposedly) have better conditions here at home, and who gives a rat's ass about foreigners?  Foreigners don't even make it to the scale of  "others". 

These so-called liberals don't even seem to recognize the irony - something they often rightfully accuse conservatives of missing - in demanding we vote for someone solely on the basis of domestic policies while denegrating us if we vote for someone else on the basis of foreign policies. 

And let me further point out the very short-sightedness of that concept:  our domestic policies (health care, education, taxes, etc.) will take a hell of a lot longer to affect the entire world than our foreign policies do, and what affects the world affects us.  Are these people unable to see how our foreign policies are affecting us? 

And furthermore, it's not at all a foregone conclusion that Mitt Rmoney would actually effect a radical difference in our domestic policies any more than will happen with Obama.  Unless, of course, he uses that unprecedented executive privilege, that Mr. Obama has been so keen to garner for the White House, to override whatever BS the Congress haggles out, which is something they are guaranteed to continue doing.

But, even deeper than all that, these "liberals" appear to be too close to the ground to see that whichever way one decides to vote this year - for Obama on domestic policies - or for Mitt Rmoney on whatever you could possibly think of to vote for Mitt Rmoney on - they are still playing the game that keeps us trapped in this unsatisfactory and world-affecting situation: there are only two teams that get to play in this game.  And this is not amateur politics; both teams are bought and paid for - owned.  Until we pull out of it, withdraw our support for it, it doesn't matter which team you vote for, because you - and the whole world - are going to end up with a nasty mess.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.