Please don't second guess the future

So, one of my favorite 'blogs is run by a bleeding-heart high-taxin' liberal[1]. I'm fine with that. Some of my best friends are serious lefties. What annoys me is that she took a shot at Libertarians today, one that I think was unprovoked.

This sort of thing offends me, because I don't take pot shots at people because of their politics. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but you can bet I want to hear you argue your case. If you come to the conclusion that guns should be banned (something with which I absolutely don't agree) but you can argue your case so that I can see that you've thought it through, then I will respect your belief and get on with my life.

It's OK that you don't agree with me. I admire people who think and can explain the logic behind their views. This is why I have respect for people who will vote for Nader even though he's the antithesis of a libertarian. Nader is an honest guy and he's always stood up for his beliefs. He lives what he preaches, and I respect that.

I bring all this up because it's really starting to piss me off that he's being called a "vote for Bush". Voting for Nader, if he stands for your beliefs, isn't a vote for Bush. It's a vote for your beliefs, and I think the ability to do that is what a democracy is all about. If you vote for Nader and the bad guy (Dubya) wins, you still don't really know what will happen. Voting for Gore even though you believe in Nader is a total cop-out.

The president is an ideological head, not a legislator. He can't do much without a cooperative congress. I'd therefore encourage you to allow your presidential vote to be an ideological statement and be really goddamn careful with your local representation (congressional elections). Don't even pretend that you know what Supreme Court justices the future president may or may not appoint and may or may not be confirmed by the Senate may or may not do[2]. You don't know that, and you can't predict it.

In the history of the world, four years is nothing. If Bush really manages to do damage in that short time (which I highly doubt and which won't happen unless the Republicans win both branches, &diety forbid), I guarantee there will be a backlash against his party. What's more important now is that we send a message that two parties aren't enough. The Democrats and Republicans are both too big, too corrupt and just are not enough to embrace the enormous number of views that exist in this country. You Nader fans out there: do you really want to see third party candidates barred from the debates again? No? Then support them!

Vote for the man in whom you believe. Vote for the man who you will feel proud to say you supported. Don't fall prey to the argument about Supreme Court justices. It's an unknowable future.

Just vote for &diety's sake, and think it through.

That's all I ask, no matter who you choose[3].

[1]Why do I read it then? Because she links to things I'd never see otherwise. She has a particular interest in the developing world, and she does an excellent job of scouring for articles, and I like to know what else is out there. I'm genuinely fascinated with understanding how other people develop their core values.

[2]Jimmy Carter, a democrat, stopped all abortions for armed services families. Nixon, a republican, appointed Blackmun who wrote the Roe v Wade majority opinion. Ford, also a Republican, was actually pro-choice and his appointment, Stevens, has fallen on the side of supporting abortion. Reagan appointed O'Connor, who is pro-choice. Really, the ability to get an abortion has eroded more on Clinton's watch than on Reagan's. If you are poor and/or live in a rural area, you are pretty well screwed.

[3]Because politics are like religion and I know I can't change your mind. I'm so sure that I won't even try, so don't you try it either.