Apathy is more irritating than Republicans: an email response

[Bossy Monkey]

Too mean?

He sent me this:
Sorry to hear that you still have political leanings. It is a sure recipe for eventual disappointment. Try as I might I simply have never been able to get excited for any candidate for national office. Even though I religiously vote in local elections I have not ever cast a vote for any presidential candidate with the exception of H. Ross Perot, and I voted for him only because I wanted to send a message that I liked having more alternatives to choose from than the usual two lamebrains. This year I am frustrated by the Democrats. I would dearly have loved to vote for a democratic presidential candidate for a whole host of reasons. I think a lot of people feel the same way, and in some ways this election was the Democrats to lose. The candidates in the primaries had a couple of individuals who I thought would be able to stand for something. Alas the Democratic candidate machine, which should be set to reincarnate Harry Truman, has, like it had done for the last two decades, reincarnated Hubert Humphrey instead. I fear its 1968 in America all over.

I'm replying with this:
It's beyond me how anybody can object to John Kerry as a candidate. Admittedly, he has an odd, unplaceable patrician accent. Then again, so did FDR. He's 8 feet tall and gawky. Of course, so was Abe Lincoln. He's from Massachusetts and has a less than electrifying record of accomplishment in the Senate. The same was said about John Kennedy. And everybody knows that he's a square who is utterly devoid of charisma-- sort of like Woodrow Wilson. So, from this list of comparisons, we conclude that Kerry has a 3 out of 4 chance of dying in office with the remaining probability that he'll end up crippled with Teresa and Col. House running the country, but up to that point, he might make a pretty effective president. Sure, it would be nice if Pat Caddell's Senator Smith would show up-- but he has, and he's the number two man on the ticket. (Try to imagine what Rove and the boys would have done to Edwards, or Dean, or any other nominee; it would not have been pretty. Or you could check of all places MAD magazine, where they show what Bush-Cheney would have done to Jesus. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=1658946&mesg_id=1658946)

The system in this country was specifically set up to prevent change rather than to make it easy. One part of this is the Electoral College, which makes a two-party system all but inevitable. The two-party system has in turn evolved such that the only people who ever get nominated are white-bread candidates who are least objectionable to the largest numbers of committed party activists. It would be neat if the two parties always produced the best two candidates possible. It would be keen if we lived in a multi-party parliamentary democracy so there would always be a plethora of choices. On the other hand, considering how well that's worked out in Italy, maybe not. Even in Britain, somewhere between us and Italy on the stability continuum, you've had Ted Heath, James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and assorted non-entities named Harold. Wheeee!

It would be extra-keen if debate in this country could be just that, and not just an endless run of "My esteemed opponent is a gay communist" attack ads. (It would be even better if the American people, or large segments thereof, didn't always fall for them.) It would be sporty if the Republicans would realize that they don't have to pander to the religious right and promise unaffordable tax cuts to win; about now I'm missing non-crazy Republicans a lot more than I'm missing Jack Kennedy. An honorable opponent would be a welcome relief after 20-odd years of this.

However, none of that is likely to happen. If you're always uninspired by the presidential candidates, consider the possibility that you are uninspirable. Agitate for reform, start a movement to eliminate the electoral college, tell Michael Powell that your kids are more hurt by political ads than by hearing "fuck" on tv, but vote. If you think it's a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer, vote for Tweedledum, but vote. Jeez, you're going to be voting anyway. If you've got to stand in that elementary school cafeteria line for a half hour anyway, you might as well vote in the presidential election, too.

Just so you know, Harry Truman was a gutless ward-heeler in the most corrupt political machine in the country, sort of like-- Hubert Humphrey. It's possible, even recommended, to read other books about American political life besides Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72.

[fudge stripe cookays]

1. Great reply.

I tried this with my aunt a couple months ago, with no luck. She's pissed at both parties, and never plans on voting again.

You're right. Apathy pisses me off more than asshole conservatives. At least the conservatives stand for something, no matter how repulsive and selfish it is.

Good luck!
FSC

[Bossy Monkey]

2. Well, he says he votes anyway, so I'm not unhopeful

He's in Seattle. Washington state is listed as a battleground state, but generally conceded to us, so it probably doesn't make a major difference whether or not he votes. Still pisses me off, though.