I have a friend who emails me stuff on a semi-regular basis - I've long since learned to stop engaging him in discussion because he tends to send me 100 page replies on the rare occasions I happen to write back, and I feel bad that he essentially wastes so much productive time writing things he has no chance in hell of me responding ti - but still, it's safe to say I'd NEVER go read any of this stuff if he didn't send me the links. And that's too bad, because by and large it's interesting, thought provoking stuff.
Today's email contained a link to a piece on LewRockwell.com by Gary North discussing self-esteem as a motivating factor in casting a ballot. There's also a lot about "CFR" but I kinda glossed over that part. ;-) http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north259.html
Rather a poorly-written piece, if you ask me. (Not that my fevered, disjointed mind can produce better).
Originally posted by Gary North Bush has sold out the conservatives in these areas: the deficit, privacy rights, Medicare, and international law prohibiting offensive war. They do not care. They are not worried about being sold out on issues. They never were. But they are deeply worried about being laughed at by their Democrat friends, who may even remark, "So, you voted for Bush." This is an impolitic political remark. No voter wants to become the butt of jokes regarding his former man. So, voters have no former men. Loyalty to proven losers is not retroactive.
This means that political loyalty to ethical principles no longer exists in America. A general who is not honored by his troops for having gone down fighting never had an army. He had only camp followers.
North asserts that conservatives don't care that Bush sold them out, simply because he is the incumbent. I'm willing to buy that, or at least entertain the notion. His conclusion that loyalty to ethical principles no longer exists, however, is specious at best. Anecdotally, I can tell you I am voting for Bush this year solely because of my principles re: foreign policy. Using a more concrete example, what motivates anyone to vote for an open seat? The desire to be on the winning team, or loyalty to certain principles? If North was right, and politics is solely about rooting for a winner, then whomever took an early lead in tracking polls would win, as more and more people would jump on the bandwagon. The entire theory, for me, unravels at this point. Imagine that today polls had Al Sharpton in a commanding lead, with Ralph Nader in a close second. By North's logic, Nader supporters should not exist, for no one wants to associate with a loser. Forget the fact that the political winners and losers are determined by voters, who must bt definition cast their votes before the winner is decided. The whole thing reads to me like a jumbled chicken vs. egg debate.
Sociologically, I suspect this is a ridiculous statement. Explain to me how people root for losing sports teams; the phenomenon seems to be the same. Rabid fans often refer to how "we" won the game. So why aren't we all Yankee fans?
And North's assumption about Republicans not being angry at bush because we won is a load of it. There are lots of reasons why I would prefer to have somebody else be the Republican nominee; hell, I didn't even support Bush in the primaries.
But of all elections to not go with a third-party candidate, this is it. The situation would become too dangerous if Kerry won. And that's why there will not be a GOP defection from Bush.
#
