Jim, I think there's plenty of room for talking about every possible angle, every possible political solution. I welcome your 'fringe' position, I really do.
I apologize if you took my statements personally, they were not meant that way. I am not arguing against the freedom to vote for whomever you feel closest too in philosophy. I'm arguing that, in certain critical elections like this one that's under a strictly either-or system, sometimes idealists have to sacrifice some of their sacred cows in the service of a greater good.
If you read my other posts, I think I'm pretty sensible about all of this. The third parties in the USA have very little clout, and tend to be a bit cloistered in that they seem happy not to communicate to the nation at large, but preach to the choir at college campuses. They by and large DON'T UNDERSTAND OR EVEN LIKE the vast majority of their countrymen.
And yet they feel qualified to claim superiority in all regards to the 'status quo', of which there seemingly are no finer distinctions... everyone is a sold out enemy of progressivism. Now we start getting into cultism.
And what's worse, they feel justified in being spoilers in the large national elections, because of their undifferentiated hostility to both major parties. That's where the egocentrism and the selfishness come in... the belief that if they, the 'fringe', can't get what they want, they'll fuck it up for EVERYONE by taking away votes from the Democrats and letting the Republicans keep stomping the world.
In a twisted way, I think some find a kind of satisfaction in this... Like I said before, it's easy to paint pretty pictures of a world with no war and no pollution and no corruption. As long as one's underdog status is maintained, one will never actually have to step up to the plate and play hardball. In other words, radical idealism is a hothouse flower that often dies fast when it's taken out of it's sheltered environment.
Lastly, there is no such thing as a political system that can impose all its favorite to-dos without become tyrannical. In some of your posts, you hint at the idea that democracy is damaging to the planet. While you may be right in the end, it's the only system that (when it's not rigged) represents the people's right to participate in their own governance.
The concept of a benign, eco-friendly, human-rights friendly, demilitarized nation is obviously not a pipe dream... they exist.
But that's Iceland, and this is the USA.
The USA is, on the whole, center-right. You can't just drop down out of the sky and rule it with edicts from the eco-elite overnight. You know that full well, but still you apply that daydream to the conversation.
The aims of the Green party in America can come to fruit, but they have to grow the trees before they can harvest widespread success in their goals. And that's what bugs me... they seem to think they should be able to skip the steps I discussed on the other thread- get a foothold in local and state governments, show that they can govern wisely (and not just assert, without evidence, that they can), and THEN go for the White House after they've earned some credentials and won over the trust of the voters.
But no, they choose to remain aloof, cultish, and full of manifestos that contain good ideas, but have no chance of working because the numbers just aren't there. You need the people, lots of them. You can't have a revolution if only a few percent of the overall population joins in.
|
