As the presidential election approaches and America polarizes according to the two dominant parties, consider the similarity between the Democratic and Republican messages.
The adversaries share a fundamental strength: the weakness of their counterparts. Both parties cohere around their disgust for the other’s leaders and platforms. The choice for president is corralled from deducing the merits of many qualified candidates to a choice of a lesser evil between two equally malignant parties.
Just look at the Democrats. Howard Dean galvanized the party from political obsolescence, not by recapitulating constructive liberal values, but by condemning the Bush administration. Dean tapped into the fundamental bond of Democrats and provided the party with significant momentum.
Without the intense animosity toward Bush fusing their interests, presumable voters for John Kerry would not be nearly as mobilized or unified in their efforts to elect him.
Kerry’s political history and present platform is a catastrophe in ethics, consistency and judgment. Although the Catholic claims to be on “God’s side,” he supports abortion, minimum wages and isolationist trade policies. Does Kerry really think God favors Americans with political influence over those without, or does he see his political decisions bearing no moral resonance?
The answer to this question lies in his opportunistic political pandering. Kerry is a champion at letting the ends justify the means, especially when that end is attaining office. He’ll stand up for intrinsic human dignity and worth when it becomes politically popular, but until then, he’s got a photo-op with Rolling Stone.
Kerry’s inept leadership constitutes the primary source of sustenance for the Republican Party. Bush’s viability depends upon many Americans’ intense aversion to Kerry and other excessively pretentious Democrats such as Michael Moore.
The apparent tragedy that is Bush’s political career affords the Democratic Party ample fire for their self-indulgent flames. Is the fact that Bush caused far greater harm than good such a mystery?
One of the most amusing things you’ll ever see in politics is the Republican effort to provide Bush’s record with positive spin. Trying to leaven the damage of Bush’s years as president is like attempting to put glitter on an elephant and convincing people it’s Tinkerbell. Republicans are only willing to pretend that Nov. 2 is Halloween if it helps them prevent the most liberal United States senator from getting elected.
The prospective Kerry voters also cast ballots against their common sense under the assumption that they will preclude Bush from another four years of damage. Dean’s downfall exemplifies the sufficiently binding force of anti-Bush sentiment. Kerry surpassed Dean in the race for the Democratic nomination, not because of his superior character or platform, but because he seemed “more electable.” In other words, he was centrist enough to beat Bush.
The lesser of two evils impetus for voting holds little logical bearing. Marginal votes are extremely insignificant. The probability of a single vote making a difference is smaller than one in a billion. We’re more likely to contract the bubonic plague than influence an election, yet many who vote to protect against the evils of the Democratic or Republican candidate don’t live in germ-free bubbles. The plan to pick one to keep the other out of office won’t work simply because of the infinitesimal effect of individual votes.
If you take the effort to vote, don’t waste it on the two candidates you see Ben Affleck and Arnold Schwarzenegger supporting. Vote for the candidate you believe will make the best president, not the one most likely to beat the guy you detest. Votes of conscience and principle are not wasted. If there is a wasted vote, it is the one cast fruitlessly against the candidate you dislike in an attempt to sway the national election.
