PhotoDude.com

Just about the only sane place to be these days, Reid. I can echo much of what you say here, though I do tend to favor my left cheek for fence sitting.

With respect, I don't think you are on the fence. People who are on the fence don't have a strong opinion either way. You have strong opinions, but in a combination that dosen't fall into a convienient place the one-dimensional, left-right axis that most people use. I think it's helpful to figure out which axis does best describe one's positions. Den Beste helped me out when he offered the Equal-Unequal axis (where the word "equal" referrs to "equality of result"). Another handy axis is the old Libertarian-Authoritarian one, and yet another is Stasism-Dynamism. For the record, I am an Unequalist-Libertarian-Dynamist. I feel much better, knowing that... too bad I have no idea who to vote for most of the time. Find your label, and trade that itchy fence for a nice comfy chair here on the sidelines.

Methinks you spoke rather well.

I think you already know the truth: (1) No politician of either major party is ever going to "earn" your vote. (2) In the crunch you'll have to pick a side, even though you can't stand either. The last candidate I wholeheartedly supported was Nixon 1960. Even though I was a little kid, my dad gave me all the buttons to wear to school and I cried when he lost. No candidate since then has come close to earning my vote. I don't think the concept of "sides" existed back then, at least for my dad, who voted for Johnson in '64, even though Dad was a Republican. In my own mind, I used to think of candidates who were either in one party or the other. I liked one (sort of) or disliked another (sort of) and either made a choice or was too lazy to vote. I first became aware of sides when I heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio, possibly in the mid eighties. When I first heard him, I was flabbergasted. If his gloves were ever on, they were off when he hit the talk radio scene. When the nineties hit, there were very definite sides and what had started out mean had turned vicious. Now, as we find ourselves in the midst of another political season, it's not only vicious, but it's gotten dangerous. Extremely dangerous. I guess I might feel a little better if I was an idealogue and knew beforehand that I was planning on voting for someone, say a socialist or a green or a libertarian, who had no chance of winning. That way I could say to hell with it while my neighbors made all the difficult choices and worked on ulcers. Damn if the world hasn't turned nasty since Nixon 1960.

It would be nice to just vote 'no' for once.

Mike: With respect, I don't think you are on the fence. People who are on the fence don't have a strong opinion either way. You have strong opinions, but in a combination that dosen't fall into a convienient place the one-dimensional, left-right axis that most people use. A valid point, Mike. But it's not just that it's the axis most people use, it's the axis around which our political system is largely built. It's even strategically codified in the strategies within each party. The candidate starts off positioning themselves towards the end of the spectrum their party occupies (playing to the positions of the left wing or the right wing). Once the nomination is secure, they slide to the center of the spectrum to position themselves for the general election. Our election process is reduced to a two dimensional strategy, usually mirror-imaged by both sides, and leaving someone like me “without place,” i.e., outside their two dimensional construct. Find your label, and trade that itchy fence for a nice comfy chair here on the sidelines. I don't fit in cubbyholes neatly, and labels tend not to stick to me for very long. And a comfy chair on the sideline sounds like something for those without strong opinions. On the fence, I'm still on the field, in a target rich environment. Richard: (1) No politician of either major party is ever going to "earn" your vote. (2) In the crunch you'll have to pick a side, even though you can't stand either. I begrudingly admit (1) may be true, but not (2). In my Election 2000 wrap up, I said: “To the two major political parties, throw us a bone, man. Somebody that can generate some enthusiasm in the electorate. We did our dead level best not to elect either of these guys.” I did my part. Neither Bush nor Gore got my vote, as all either of them earned from me during the campaign was distressed bemusement. And if you review the bottom of this page, you see that prior to 9/11, I often poked at the administration (among others) and posted no praise. However, we now all have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, given the knowledge of the events that would follow Election 2000. And I can't say the alternative would have been better, in fact, I lean to the opposite supposition. The last candidate I wholeheartedly supported was Nixon 1960. That may be the scariest sentence I've ever seen you write. Anon: It would be nice to just vote 'no' for once. I understand that sentiment. I once succumbed to it. I was so very angry at Bush the First, I was completely open to the temptation of a “no” vote. And almost like some Deal at the Crossroads, there appeared an opposing candidate who, like me, was a left handed Southern Baptist Baby-Boom Generation Child of the South. In the end, it didn't work out too well.

Based on everything I've read from you, I rather suspect that in any of these political bunfights, if you do end up on the opposite side from me, it won't be for some totally insane reason. Always remember that this isn't the nastiest time ever in American politics, not by a long shot. If there isn't serious risk of a civil war (and there isn't), then things have been worse. Actually, so far I think the tone was nastier in '88. It does have the potential to get ugly down the line. As I said months ago, it will be interesting to see if the Democratic convention that's coming to my fair city's shiny new convention center next summer goes sour and violent. I'm a bit more sanguine than I was then; it was way nastier in '68.