Off Topic: Mickey Mouse For President!

From any reasonable perspective, modern politics leaves much to be desired for those, such as myself, who favor pragmatism over idealogy. When it comes to political activist a myriad of choices are presented, each with their own set of problems and compromises. While participating in protests, using social media to raise awareness of social injustice, letter writing campaigns, petitions, and so on are all legitimate means of political activism, there is really only one way in a democratic society to achieve real social change, namely voting.

But then the question becomes, which candidate should one vote for? Should one even vote for any candidate? In the upcoming Presidential election, voters will have the option to choose between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama. However, I think it's worth comparing the differnt optionns and considering the pragmatic value of each compared to voting for either mainstream candidates.

Option 1: Not voting
A totally non-pragmatic option as there is no chance of affecting social change by not voting. By staying home and not voting as a means of protest, all one will accomplish is to make oneself totally irrelevant to the political process.

Option 2: Voting third party or supporting a candidate doing a write in campaign.
This has pragmatic merit and therefore worth considering, due to the fact that having a viable third party has a shot at breaking through the dysfunctional mess that is modern politics. True, the chances of the candidate winning the election may be slim, but the fact is that every political party has to get it's start somewhere, but if a political party or politician gets enough votes, it may garner them enough attention to allow them win the proceeding election or at least get airtime on future debates.

Option 3: Abstaining but still casting a ballot or by writing in your favorite cartoon character.
Different from Option 1 in the sense that it requires the political activist to actually go to polling station and make aproximately the same effort as any other voter. While in the short term you will not be affecting the immediate election, the advantage comes from the message it sends to whoever wins. Consider how much more seriously an elected politician will take constituents concerns if their main compitition was from Mickey Mouse.

Granted this applies less when the politician who wins becomes a second term President, but I think it's worth considering, even if the chances of this having the desired affect are slightly less than number 2.

Also, I would like to point out that I have done this myself in one local election, when the candidate in question was running unapposed and had taken on positions that I found untenable.

Option 4: Voting For Either Democrate or Republican
For the pragmatic political activist, there is no longer any reason to consider voting for Republican candidates at the national level. I can't comment on local or state politicans too much (particularly as there is one local Republcan candidate currently holding office that I like) but when it comes to the GOP, idealogy now trumps any and all reason. What makes the situation worse is that the GOP's idealogy is horrifically inconsistent due to the crossing of Ayn Rands' Libertarianism (Screw the poor! Big Business Rocks!) while picking and choosing bits and pieces of Old Testament Law (Death to the Homosexual!) to shove down citizens' throats. "Uttely nonsensical" is a phrase unable to come anywhere near summing up my feelings for the current GOP.

From a pragmatice perspective when it comes to Romeney and Obama, there is no contest. Based upon everything I have read about Romeny's economic policies and positions, I see no reason to believe that that they will do anything besides benefit the rich while screwing over the middle and working classes. Toss in Romney's laughing off the fact that he once assaulted a fellow student who demonstrated non-conforming behavior and combined with his waffling/etch-a-sketching on every issue, and there is nothing to indicate that Romney has any leadership qualities worth mentioning.

Yes, I have very serious concerns about the positions and prioritites that many Democratic politicians, paticularly Obama have taken, as well as some of the legislation that they have supported and passed.

I get why many people are fed up with the democrates. To me, modern politics often feels like the following scenario.

You've just been in a serious car wreck, are experiencing severe arterial bleeding, your arms are bent at angles you didn't know were possible, and you can't move or feel anything below your waist. Along come the Democrates and offer you only a single band-aid and maybe spread a little salt in the wounds "to prevent infection". When the Republicans show up, they simply offer a length of rope tied into a noose, "to make the pain go away quicker".

At the same time, liberal political pundits stand around the smoking hulk that was once your car, hyping the undervalued healing properties of salt when combined with band-aids. All the while, conservative commentators argue that the rope in question is too expensive and because all of the money spent by the government on the noose, the salt, and the band-aids has now all been added to the national debt, we can soon be expecting the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Furthermore, the conservatives argue, the EPA really sucks because of how much envirnmental regulations will cost to remove and properly dispose of your car.

As you start to draw your final breaths, the liberals jump back in argueing that the EPA is good damnit (how dare the conservatives suggest otherwise) becuase of how much it will be helping to save all the species that are now endangered by the toxic fumes your burning vehicle is giving off.

Conclusion
Getting back the issue at hand, as a pragmatist, I believe in choosing the options before me, not in giving in to idealogy. That means even if I disagree with the President's stance in favor of LGB assimilation via marriage, I will still consider voting for him over the guy who assaulted a fellow student for demonstrating effeminate behavior.

To me, the choice a pragmatic activist has comes down to voting for a third party or write in candidate vs. voting for Obama. Those options are legitimate means of creating political change, while voting for Romney in the presidential election means chossing the worst of all the possible options. The worst option is not voting at all, which means giving up all chance of achieving political change and social justice.

Off Topic: The Diverse Visions of the Founding Fathers.

I keep coming across this phrase again and again, "The one true vision of the Founding Fathers". This is a phrase, I would argue, which has only one proper response. That response being the sort of BLEEPing noise one hears on game shows when a contestant gives a wrong answer to a question, or if on Jeopardy! the wrong question to the answer.

Why is this one might ask? Well, basically because the very idea that there was one, and only one, unified vision that the Founding Fathers had for America, is fundamentally flawed. The Founding Fathers, I would like to point out, were rarely of one mind and disagreed frequently. Their political (and religioius) beliefs were as diverse as the Founding Fathers themselves

Some of the founding fathers owned slaves, others were abolitionists. Some thought a weak central government was best, others thought a stronger federal government was needed to rule over the states. Some were atheists, diests, and agnotics, others were deeply religious. Some believed that a bill of rights would be unnecessary, but we ended up with one anyways

Furthermore, the Founding Fathers were not even of one mind over how the Constitution itself should be interpreted. Some, like Thomas Jefferson believed that the government had no powers other than what were explicitely granted by the Constitution, others believed a looser interpretation would be necessary in order to practically run a country.

If there was one value that the Founding Fathers agreed on, it was the importance compromise. You read that right, the Founding Fathers were big fans of coming together, in spite of their differences of opinion and negotiating untill a compromise could be reached. One needs to look no further than the U.S. Constitution to see this. The most obvious would be the Great Compromise, which divides Congress up into the Senate and House of Representatives. The other well known compromise would be the 3/5ths compromise, which also serves as an awkward acknowldgment of the existence of slavery.

If there is one value that has been lost in modern politics, it is the importance of compromise and negotiation. What makes this even more interesting (and ironic) is the fact that amongst many of todays politicians, those who cry the loudest about being true to the vision of the Founding Fathers, are also those who have become the most intractable.

Off Topic: Ayn Rand is the Anti-Christ.

Alright, The Fountain just made it's way up the Netflix que and I therefore was able to see it on Sunday. I don't want to right an actual review (there is nothing artistically worth commenting on) but I do want to say some things about it.

First, Ayn Rand's philosophy is so bizarrely irrational and self contradictory that I feel obligated to argue that Ayn Rand's The Fountain probably represents the greatest contribution of all time to American anti-intellectualism. Admittedly though, at this point I have not seen Atlas Shrugged.

There are two fundamental claims being made in The Fountanhead.

1) People should hold rational self interest above all else. No character in the film actually bothers with this so let's look at claim number 2.

2) A person's work is his own, and the only way society has advanced is thanks to the innovations of a small number individuals who were smarter and brighter than the unwashed conservative, change hating, innovation repelling masses. Furthermore, any man who refuses to compromise and lives only according to his own vision without *any* assistance or aid from anyone else is the ideal man. Also, you can blow shit up whenever things don't go your way.

I will assert that these two concepts are in direct conflict with each other and the only reason they never come into direct conflict with each other in The Fountainhead is because of the complete fantasy land Ayn Rand created for her characters to play in.

The first instance where they almost come into conflict is when Roark almost manages to sell his first architectural design but refuses to compromise in any way. I felt that Ayn Rand was having a nice little laugh during this scene and deliberately flipping a giant birdie at the very notion of rationale self interest. By being principled and uncompromising, Roark, the anti-capitalist, anti-rationale self interest poster boy, gives up an early chance at having a successful career as an architect.

This is the first time Rational Self Interest loses out to Adhering to Principled and Uncompromising Vision of the Artistic Genius. It happens later as well when Roark blows up the apartment complex that he designed but for which the design had ended up being altered by others. Again, there is no reason the man adhering only to rational self interest should do this, only a visionary, uncompromising artist would have any reason to blow it up. Again, I could very clearly hear Ayn Rand telling rationale self interest to go fuck itself.

Ultimately, this is what the conflict of The Fountainhead boils down to. Roark, the genuis architect, refusing to compromise his artistic genuis in any way and basically throwing a hissy fit and blowing shit up real good after the one time that he ends up being inadvertantly forced to comprimise his artistic vision.

So let me sum up what I found the take home message of The Fountainhead:
-Rational self interest and capitalism can suck it, because they make too many demands on the artistic vision of geniuses like Ayn Rand.
-Socialism can suck it, because the ways of being dependent on others in a socialist society are somehow, much worse than the ways capitalism makes people dependent on corporations and artistic genuises like Ayn Rand.
-Being nice to others is really bad, because contrary to what a socialist like Jesus might have preached at one point, only the rational self interest of artistic geniuses like Ayn Rand matter.

Regarding that last point, I just want to say this but Ayn Rand is clearly the anti-Christ. Not in a harbinger of the apocalypse kind of way, I just mean that her views are completely antithetical to the message of Jesus. Nietzche, who pointed to Jesus as one possible pre-model for the ubermenzche, had a more Christian message to deliver. This isn't a problem so much for Ayn Rand herself as she was an atheist. However, there is a trend I find disturbing, namely that in this day and age, many adherents of Ayn Rand (namely certain Libertarian/Republican politicians) also proclaim that we are or need to be a Christian nation. Talk about worshipping two masters.

However, while Ayn Rand was an atheist, I could not help but notice that she has Roark following a very messianic path. Roark is beset, from the beginning, by the temptation of giving into the demands of a capitalist society, yet refuses to comprimise his vision, even going so far as to work in a rock quarry. Over time, he even gains his own followers and disciples. Eventually, Roark is forced to take drastic action, in order to maintain his non-rational, non-self interest serving principles and artistic vision, which results in him being arrested and placed on trial. During this time, his darkest hour, even his followers/disciples are forced to abandon/deny him. Eventually, thanks to Roarks willingness to endure these trials and tribulations, he emerges triumphant over evil.

The difference between Roark and Jesus, is that Jesus argued for principles such as humiliaty and empathy for ones fellow man, while Roark sticks his noise in the air, and declares that he, the ever tortured artist, must make a martyr out of himself because his artistic vision is just that awsome.

Off topic

Something many of us have suspected for some time now, I'm sure:


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad