archive

Monday, July 30, 2007

The Art of the Possible

I avoid the details of politics. Not a policy wonk. Big picture guy. I process the details without bothering to remember them. I'm looking for patterns and principles. Other fields are all about details, and I have to master them. A thing is proven by facts, and facts are details. What do you prove with politics? My opinion is better than yours? I know what will happen in the future? Could be -- some folks make money in the stock market. But the only guide we have to the future is what has worked in the past. That's called history, not politics. Politics is gossip. Interesting, but not edifying.

That being said, we have to vote for someone. The race has started up, and the dogs are running. Democrats and Republicans. Demoncraps and Retardicacas. The Big Tent is full of clowns, and the Rainbow Coalition is shades of pink and yellow through and through -- these colors do run. But you have to choose someone. If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain.

Democrats are the abortion party. That's the end of it, for me. They were the slavery party. You'd think that would have been enough to finish them. It's the frickun Dracula Party -- it will not die. The blood of babies, and blacks, must be very nourishing. But perhaps that's not a thoroughly valid argument. Perhaps there are some, or many, good things about the Democrat party. I think Social Security is good. A good idea, anyhow. If it lasts. Um. I'm sure there's something else in the past seventy-two years that they did that's also good. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- although that was passed with a higher percentage of Republican than Democrat Congressional votes. Hm. Uh, let's see -- Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, clinton. Well, Truman dropped the bomb. That was good. Uh, Kennedy made some good speeches. Um.

Anyway. The Republicans. The Stupid Party. The Shoot Yourself In The Foot Party. The Now That We're In Power We Can Spend Like Drunken Democrats Party. Well, they're just politicians. We can't actually feel any hope over them. Hope is what religion is for. Politics is about potholes and borders. Well, potholes.

Hillary's it for the dems. Obama as VP. A balanced ticket, which is what it's about. She has the experience, of sorts, and the balls, of sorts -- he has likability. So they'd better not call each other too many names during the primary campaign. I still remember Bush One's "voodoo economics" crack against Reagan. It always tainted things in my mind after that.

I think it'll be Giulliani for the republicans. He's tough on terrorism, which is the defining issue of the times, and he's moderate socially, which strikes a reasonable-seeming compromise. He's playing Solomon quite well, on social issues -- dividing the baby with the sword of Federalism. Smart, and really in tune with the founding principle of this nation. The horror of Roe v Wade isn't that it's about abortion -- it's that it imposed abortionist values on all of us, rather than on only abortionists. Federalism will solve that abomination. There will always be abortionist states. Not all states should be abortionist. We did fight a Civil War over this very issue, you may recall. The Roe v Wade of exactly 150 years ago was the Dred Scott Decision. All states must be slave states. Well ... no. We expect that there will always be evil. Federalism allows for that evil to not be made universal. There's a place to run to.

Giulliani has proven his competence beyond any doubt. You're too young to remember NY in the bad old days when the streets flowed with urine, but he's the one who mopped it up. That's what the President must do -- take care of business. We can go to church for preachers. This may seem a surprising position, from me. You don't know me. Gay marriage? There can be no such thing. Civil unions? That's just a contract, that some states may enforce and other's may nullify. The question hinges on whether or not some employment or state benefits are fungible. Must health benefits apply only to a spouse, or to any designated partner. Genitals seem rather ancillary to that question. The point is, it sounds like a moral issue, but it isn't a matter for the federal government.

The Republican VP? Fred Thompson. Again, balances the ticket. Thompson is universally described as folksy, avuncular, southern-fried. That is as it may be. Charm goes a long way. But he's too conservative for the times. Not for me, but for the times. It's about getting elected. Rudy gets the moderates, Fred brings in the conservatives. It's a winning ticket. Hillary currently has a 52% unlikability factor -- people who say they would never vote for her. That's crippling. Rudy is likable, Hillary is not. Obama and Fred cancel each other out in terms of charm, but Fred brings in the right, whereas Hillary already carries the left without Obama.

No, I don't know. Just guessing. Things change. But never Edwards. Howdy Doody had his chance in Quayle. Never the old-man senators. Can't even remember their names. Not Romney -- I think the Mormon thing does matter, but the real issue is name recognition. Only the Republicans know who he is, and not all of them. Everyone knows Hillary and Giulliani. Fred is a movie star. If I had the power I think I should have, I'd have JC Watts as VP.

It was Bismarck who said that politics is the art of the possible. It's not about how things should be. Things should be perfect. Not possible. But in a flawed world, how can we do the least harm? As a father, I was a Taoist. Do as little as possible, but do everything necessary. My son N had one of those annoying bowl haircuts in the mid nineties. I absolutely hated it. But it wasn't my business. He wanted it, and it did no harm, and it was his right. I kept my mouth shut. What politician is likely to follow such a philosophy? We know what social engineering does. It causes famines in the Ukraine and Killing Fields where rice should grow. It's a simplistic analogy, but which of our two parties is less likely to try to redefine human nature?

We should do only things that are possible. We can leave the impossible things to religion.


J

2 comments:

Will C. said...

Watch how logic and moral authority (as an OBGYN) can single-handedly destroy the pro-choice position. Too bad the little guy is so loony on foreign policy...or he'd have my vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL1BOWC3No0

Jack H said...

Here I was, thinking Ron Paul was a giant black drag queen. Isn't communication funny?

As I say, the art of the *possible.* Ron Paul is not possible. Therefore, an irrelevance.