an OP-ED im writing for the school newspaper
lazysmurff
09-12-2004, 12:11 PM
so im writing an op-ed for the school newspaper, and i thought to myself "what better critics than the guys in the politics forum on AF. their smart, i'll get all sides oppinions etc etc etc." so here you go, feel free to edit, critique, argue with or against....you know, the usual.
------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve all seen the blind taste test commercials touting how the American public, when given just the “the facts” and no labels or names, picked this beer over that one, or this soda over this other one. It is in this vein that I wish to perform my own taste test of sorts. I’m going to present to you Presidential Candidate X. Mr. X is a white male Christian, graduated from an Ivy League school, has a questionable military service record, and is incredibly wealthy, though not by any fault of his own. Mr. X, while in office, has demonstrated a lack of concern for civil rights, including support for the US PATRIOT Act. He also supports the continuation of the war in Iraq (and maybe even an increase of troop presence) as well a supporting a continuation of the war on our rights (also known as the “war on terror”). He does not support the rights of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexuals) to marry. While Mr. X. verbally supports the commitment to alternate fuels and a preservation of the environment, he also supports the dramatic increase of spending on the industrial military complex that serves to destroy this environment he claims to protect. Mr. X. also supports such things as the death penalty, the continued embargo on communist Cuba and continued trade with communist China. Would you vote for candidate X? I wouldn’t either.
The fact of the matter remains, however, that the vast majority of those of you who vote, will be voting for this candidate because the above description fits not only the incumbent Mr. Bush, but the contender, Mr. Kerry, as well. It is strange how similar these two men are, not only in their ultra privileged upper crust lifestyles, but also in their politics.
The solution, my fellow voters, is not to be found in the Republi-crat party that now holds power, but rather in the lower ranks of the political parties. Those names below John and George, the ones labeled “Socialist”, “Libertarian”, “Green” and the like, are our only salvation short of violent overthrow. Yes, citing your intentions to vote third party will undoubtedly receive responses such as “Not voting for Kerry is a vote for Bush.” and “Not voting for Bush is a vote for Kerry.” So which one is it? Or is it just that that sentiment has been beaten into our heads by the popular media for so long that we have come to believe we are wasting our votes if we don’t vote for the major party that runs America. MTV’s Rock the Vote will be a stark example of this (un?)intentional brainwash. You will be told that you have a voice, and to at least vote for something, but the only choices you will be presented with is the Republi-crat party and its two contenders, Bush and Bush-lite.
It’s time, my friends, for us to take a stand. We can either support the less than mediocre “toe the party line” candidates we will be forever presented with, or we can find a party that better represents our views. We can choose to follow the herd, and perpetuate this cycle of “one party, two faces” tyranny. Or we can choose to take a stand against the popular, and let our voices truly be heard. Some will tell you that this election is too import to be taking a stand like this, that ousting the incumbent (or keeping him in) is too vital at this point in our history to risk losing the election because of third parties. I ask, what better time to make a statement? With all eyes on this election, what better chance for those of us dissatisfied with the current face of national politics to stand up and be heard? The constitution reads “We the people” , not “We the Republicans and Democrats”. This is our country. Let’s take it back.
------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve all seen the blind taste test commercials touting how the American public, when given just the “the facts” and no labels or names, picked this beer over that one, or this soda over this other one. It is in this vein that I wish to perform my own taste test of sorts. I’m going to present to you Presidential Candidate X. Mr. X is a white male Christian, graduated from an Ivy League school, has a questionable military service record, and is incredibly wealthy, though not by any fault of his own. Mr. X, while in office, has demonstrated a lack of concern for civil rights, including support for the US PATRIOT Act. He also supports the continuation of the war in Iraq (and maybe even an increase of troop presence) as well a supporting a continuation of the war on our rights (also known as the “war on terror”). He does not support the rights of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexuals) to marry. While Mr. X. verbally supports the commitment to alternate fuels and a preservation of the environment, he also supports the dramatic increase of spending on the industrial military complex that serves to destroy this environment he claims to protect. Mr. X. also supports such things as the death penalty, the continued embargo on communist Cuba and continued trade with communist China. Would you vote for candidate X? I wouldn’t either.
The fact of the matter remains, however, that the vast majority of those of you who vote, will be voting for this candidate because the above description fits not only the incumbent Mr. Bush, but the contender, Mr. Kerry, as well. It is strange how similar these two men are, not only in their ultra privileged upper crust lifestyles, but also in their politics.
The solution, my fellow voters, is not to be found in the Republi-crat party that now holds power, but rather in the lower ranks of the political parties. Those names below John and George, the ones labeled “Socialist”, “Libertarian”, “Green” and the like, are our only salvation short of violent overthrow. Yes, citing your intentions to vote third party will undoubtedly receive responses such as “Not voting for Kerry is a vote for Bush.” and “Not voting for Bush is a vote for Kerry.” So which one is it? Or is it just that that sentiment has been beaten into our heads by the popular media for so long that we have come to believe we are wasting our votes if we don’t vote for the major party that runs America. MTV’s Rock the Vote will be a stark example of this (un?)intentional brainwash. You will be told that you have a voice, and to at least vote for something, but the only choices you will be presented with is the Republi-crat party and its two contenders, Bush and Bush-lite.
It’s time, my friends, for us to take a stand. We can either support the less than mediocre “toe the party line” candidates we will be forever presented with, or we can find a party that better represents our views. We can choose to follow the herd, and perpetuate this cycle of “one party, two faces” tyranny. Or we can choose to take a stand against the popular, and let our voices truly be heard. Some will tell you that this election is too import to be taking a stand like this, that ousting the incumbent (or keeping him in) is too vital at this point in our history to risk losing the election because of third parties. I ask, what better time to make a statement? With all eyes on this election, what better chance for those of us dissatisfied with the current face of national politics to stand up and be heard? The constitution reads “We the people” , not “We the Republicans and Democrats”. This is our country. Let’s take it back.
MagicRat
09-12-2004, 12:50 PM
You make a very good point and it's nicely written too.
I recall I may also have commented that the ologopoly in American politics by two quite simililar parties is not democracy. As I recall, it did not evoke any kind of comment from anyone else.
It is difficult for anyone to make their voice heard or presence known if thei opinion or principles differ from the relatively narrow view as represented by both the GOP and the Democrats.
Most other democratic countries have less popular parties, (Greens, Socialists, libertarians etc) who do make their opinion and voice heard, and can represent a viable, opposing point of view.
IMHO Americans DO let their alternative voice heard by NOT VOTING!!
The US consistently has just about the lowest votor turn out of any democracy, because about half the electorate doesn't give a sh*t enough to vote. Why?
Because they believe it won't make a difference, or they know nothing of the candidates etc.
This apathy is, in a way, a protest vote. How can any democracy truthfully call itself a democracy when half the people dont vote.
How's this for an idea. If an election does not get at least an 80% turn out, its results are null and void because the voice of the people was not heard.
I recall I may also have commented that the ologopoly in American politics by two quite simililar parties is not democracy. As I recall, it did not evoke any kind of comment from anyone else.
It is difficult for anyone to make their voice heard or presence known if thei opinion or principles differ from the relatively narrow view as represented by both the GOP and the Democrats.
Most other democratic countries have less popular parties, (Greens, Socialists, libertarians etc) who do make their opinion and voice heard, and can represent a viable, opposing point of view.
IMHO Americans DO let their alternative voice heard by NOT VOTING!!
The US consistently has just about the lowest votor turn out of any democracy, because about half the electorate doesn't give a sh*t enough to vote. Why?
Because they believe it won't make a difference, or they know nothing of the candidates etc.
This apathy is, in a way, a protest vote. How can any democracy truthfully call itself a democracy when half the people dont vote.
How's this for an idea. If an election does not get at least an 80% turn out, its results are null and void because the voice of the people was not heard.
lazysmurff
09-12-2004, 03:38 PM
you're right, doesnt look like i'll get any responses either.
however, to future readers, please keep in mind that my school will be hosting rock the vote this year, which is why i mention it (as this will be in the school newspaper two days before the event.)
however, to future readers, please keep in mind that my school will be hosting rock the vote this year, which is why i mention it (as this will be in the school newspaper two days before the event.)
Flatrater
09-12-2004, 07:50 PM
How can any democracy truthfully call itself a democracy when half the people dont vote.
That is democracy! We have the choice to vote or not to vote.
de·moc·ra·cy [ di mókr ssee (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/Pronounce.aspx?search=democracy) ] (plural de·moc·ra·cies)
noun 1. free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people
2. democratic governmental system: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making
3. organizational control by members: the control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes
That is democracy! We have the choice to vote or not to vote.
de·moc·ra·cy [ di mókr ssee (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/Pronounce.aspx?search=democracy) ] (plural de·moc·ra·cies)
noun 1. free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people
2. democratic governmental system: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making
3. organizational control by members: the control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes
lazysmurff
09-12-2004, 08:21 PM
actually, to get technical, we're supposed to have a republic
Flatrater
09-12-2004, 08:28 PM
actually, to get technical, we're supposed to have a republic
republicre·pub·lic [ ri púbblik (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/Pronounce.aspx?search=republic) ] (plural re·pub·lics)noun 1. political system with powerful electorate: a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them
2. state with powerful electorate: a state or other political unit with a form of government in which the supreme power is in the hands of representatives elected by the people
3. re·pub·lic or Re·pub·lic country with republican government: a country whose government or political system is that of a republic
4. re·pub·lic or Re·pub·lic (plural Re·publics) republican unit within larger country: a constituent political and territorial unit of a national federation or union
5. group of equals with collective interests: a group of people who are considered to be equals and who have a collective interest, objective, or vocation
republicre·pub·lic [ ri púbblik (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/Pronounce.aspx?search=republic) ] (plural re·pub·lics)noun 1. political system with powerful electorate: a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them
2. state with powerful electorate: a state or other political unit with a form of government in which the supreme power is in the hands of representatives elected by the people
3. re·pub·lic or Re·pub·lic country with republican government: a country whose government or political system is that of a republic
4. re·pub·lic or Re·pub·lic (plural Re·publics) republican unit within larger country: a constituent political and territorial unit of a national federation or union
5. group of equals with collective interests: a group of people who are considered to be equals and who have a collective interest, objective, or vocation
MagicRat
09-12-2004, 10:50 PM
That is democracy! We have the choice to vote or not to vote.
de·moc·ra·cy [ di mókr ssee (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/Pronounce.aspx?search=democracy) ] (plural de·moc·ra·cies)
noun 1. free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people
2. democratic governmental system: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making
3. organizational control by members: the control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes
Thank you, Flat, you just proved my point!
Because a minority of people vote in your country, you do not have a true 'democratic governmental system'.
Besides you absolutely missed the point of smurf's thread. The Democrats and Republicans are effectively, so similar they do not provide the people with a true choice in representation. As I stated before, this undermines the democratic process.
de·moc·ra·cy [ di mókr ssee (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/Pronounce.aspx?search=democracy) ] (plural de·moc·ra·cies)
noun 1. free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people
2. democratic governmental system: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making
3. organizational control by members: the control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes
Thank you, Flat, you just proved my point!
Because a minority of people vote in your country, you do not have a true 'democratic governmental system'.
Besides you absolutely missed the point of smurf's thread. The Democrats and Republicans are effectively, so similar they do not provide the people with a true choice in representation. As I stated before, this undermines the democratic process.
Flatrater
09-13-2004, 06:49 AM
Thank you, Flat, you just proved my point!
Because a minority of people vote in your country, you do not have a true 'democratic governmental system'.
Besides you absolutely missed the point of smurf's thread. The Democrats and Republicans are effectively, so similar they do not provide the people with a true choice in representation. As I stated before, this undermines the democratic process.
I guess you don't understand! It's the majority of voters and not the majority of the population. Everyone has the right to vote if they decide not to vote that is their right. Afterall kids under 18 years old are not allowed to vote so how can one get the majprity of poeple to vote?
Your logic is twisted beyond belief.
Because a minority of people vote in your country, you do not have a true 'democratic governmental system'.
Besides you absolutely missed the point of smurf's thread. The Democrats and Republicans are effectively, so similar they do not provide the people with a true choice in representation. As I stated before, this undermines the democratic process.
I guess you don't understand! It's the majority of voters and not the majority of the population. Everyone has the right to vote if they decide not to vote that is their right. Afterall kids under 18 years old are not allowed to vote so how can one get the majprity of poeple to vote?
Your logic is twisted beyond belief.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025