?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
breeden
ursulav

(no subject)

Well. Enough moping, back to work. Art waits for no angst.

So, my final statement. Since most of us are sick of politics, go ahead and skip it. It's harsh and not at all conciliatory, and keeps the partisan rift nicely bloody. You've been warned.

If you voted for Bush, I'm holding you personally responsible for every single lousy, stupid, unethical thing his administration does. The first time, sure--that came out of left field. Coulda been blindsided. No hard feelings. But you all know exactly who he is now, and you voted for him anyway. That makes you entirely morally culpable. It's your fault from here on out.

He pushes for anti-abortion laws? Your fault. He pushes for an anti-gay amendment? Your fault. He wrecks the environment by pandering to industry? Guess who's fault! He fucks up the war in Iraq even more? You get half credit for that, we need to save some for insurgencies, but I'm sure there'll be plenty of blood for everbody's hands to get a nice speckling.

Somebody at this point will doubtless say "But I'm pro-choice, too!" or something like that. Tough shit. You voted for him. People should know by now that what you believe means nothing compared to what you've DONE. If I stole something, and then tried to claim that I knew stealing was wrong, so I shouldn't be held accountable, what kind of defense is that? It may even be worse! If you believed differently, you should have acted differently.* You made your choice. Beliefs are great, but actions are real.

Now, if you're a mature adult, I imagine this really shouldn't be a problem. You'll be willing to be held accountable for your actions. I certainly am. I'll be held responsible if the people I voted for get in office and do bad things. If the governor here tries to secede from the union or ban religion or something, I'll take my lumps. I voted for him. I share the blame. That's the way it works. I voted for Nader in 2000, and he turned out to be a crazy jackass, and I share a moral culpability for having supported him. I accept that. You want to go off about what an idiot Nader is, I'll sit here and take it. I deserve every word. Hell, I'll chime in during the slow bits. I know all kinds of synonyms for "barking moonbat" and I'm willing to use 'em.

We are responsible for the actions of administrations we support. If you don't want to be responsible, don't support them.

But there's a silver lining! If Bush does something really great, I'm happy to dispense credit to y'all too. Fair is fair. He cures cancer or negotiates a working Palestinian peace accord, it's all yours. I'm bitter and angry and petty, but if he turns out to be Rushmore material, accolades will be forthcoming for all who supported him, and I'll freely admit that I was wrong.

And come on. Surely you must believe that Bush will do great things rather than stupid or dangerous things. After all, if you thought he was an idiot who'd screw things up, you surely wouldn't have voted for him in the first place! So really, you shouldn't have anything to worry about at all. As long as Bush is good for this country, you have absolutely nothing to fear at all.

And that, gang, is my last word on the subject until Bush does something stupid. Tune in next time for nothing to do with politics whatsoever.



*Not neccessarily voting Kerry, mind you, there are lots of moral issues there that I can easily see people disagreeing with, but there's a handy write-in slot too. The options were limitless. What you chose binds you.


  • 1
If Wesley Clark had been the Democratic nominee, my vote most likely would have gone *very* differently.

As it is, I did vote for Bush, and I think Ursula's comments are fair and reasonable--I voted for him, so if he Royally Screws Stuff Up, I share in the responsibility for that. The thing I'm worried most about (not the war, ironicaly) is the gay marriage thing. It's only a matter of time before Bush enacts *something* regarding gay marriage. 11 states already voted to ban it, which is horribly disheartening, to put it tremendously mildly, and if 11 states did that independantly, Bush will likely see that as support enough to enact a federal ban on it, either via a constitutional ammendment or via some other means. And that, frankly, has me physically ill. And since I voted for him, no matter how bitterly I oppose his position on that particular issue, what he does regarding it is on my head. I understood that long before I voted, and it wasn't easy to come to the decision I ultimately did--but it was my choice, and it's now my responsibility.

On the other hand, had I voted for Kerry, I could see more things that I disagreed with that I would ultimately then be responsible for than in voting for Bush, so voting for Kerry wouldn't have been any better in that respect. Nor Nadar, nor anyone else on the ballot. Nor, to be honest, anyone I could possibly think of as a write-in candidate, except maybe myself. I know of no one who supports the same things I support and opposes the same things I oppose, to the same extents that I support or oppose them, so ultimately, any vote for anyone other than myself would leave me indeirectly supporting things that don't represent my personal views and thus indirectly responsible for anything that person might do in office, if elected. Maybe I should just write myself in next time and call it a day? ;-)

By the way, Sorry again, Ursula, for the uncomfortable....thingy in your other entry. You and I do certainly disagree on some issues (though we agree on quite a number, too!), but I respect you highly, and I didn't mean to upset you. Akirashima and I have talked in the comments of my journal, and everything's cool with us, but I wanted to make sure to appologize to you again. And if you want to come over to my house and loose a sackful of rabid zombie wombats on me in my sleep, I'll understand. ;-)

--Jennifer

Don't worry about it--we're all running at high loony levels right now, god knows. No worries.

Good. ;-) It actually bothered me all the way home from work last night that I'd upset you, so I'm glad to know there are no lasting injuries. And feel free to take me up on that rabid zombie wombat offer if/when Bush does something unutterably stupid--I'll deserve it, and I'm sure it'll be at least mildly amusing to watch. :-)

--Jennifer

Yar... the anti gay marriage thing is pretty much the main reason I don't consider myself republican.

... the stem cell thing bothers me too though.

If it makes you feel any better (and I'm stunned I'm attempting to offer solace to a Bush voter), Bush ultimately has no formal say in a constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments must get the favor of 2/3 of each house of congress, and a majority vote in the legislature of 3/4 of the states. The President, at best, gets to sit on the sidelines and cheer. (And for anyone thinking of following this up: I deliberately held back from writing all the snarkies I thought of after writing that. Please try to restrain yourselves too.) Admittedly, the President's opinion on an issue can carry a fair bit of weight -- but that's all it can do.

Not to mention ratification by the states. I seem to recall in 1984 that the ERA, equal rights for women amendment, failed to acheive that.

  • 1