A Little More Background Color....
Over the past few weeks I've received more than a few requests from readers for more personal background, which is understandable since the "about me" section of this blog is short. Also, interpreting what I write here is easier with more perspective in terms of political ideology. I've never liked to divulge how I've voted, but this blog is (for now) anonymous, and had I been writing during past elections I would have made it clear which candidate I preferred. So, for what it's worth, here is how I've voted in past presidential elections:
1988 Bush
1992 Bush
1996 Dole
2000 Bush
2004 Kerry
I've voted almost exclusively Republican in other races---such as Rick Lazio in his campaign against Hillary Clinton---depending on where I was living at the time. I voted for Kerry last year for reasons obvious to any reader of this blog. I'm also a strong and vocal supporter of Eliot Spitzer, mostly as a function of what I see by virtue of my profession (asset management) which I explain in this post.
My early take on the 2008 election is here.
So there you have it.
1988 Bush
1992 Bush
1996 Dole
2000 Bush
2004 Kerry
I've voted almost exclusively Republican in other races---such as Rick Lazio in his campaign against Hillary Clinton---depending on where I was living at the time. I voted for Kerry last year for reasons obvious to any reader of this blog. I'm also a strong and vocal supporter of Eliot Spitzer, mostly as a function of what I see by virtue of my profession (asset management) which I explain in this post.
My early take on the 2008 election is here.
So there you have it.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Saturday, June 25, 2005
23 Comments:
TCR:
It has seemed to me to be a universal truth that you become more conservative as you get older.
On the other hand, having read your blog fairly religiously since you started posting, you appear to have become more of a Liberal.
I don't think any of us hold it against you.
Good info thanks TCR.
Welcome to the land of the "unpatriotic"!
TCR
I have never thought that you would vote
for Kerry.However since I began reading your posts, I concluded that eventhough you say you are a conservative, you were not a ditto head. A ditto head has no opinion, no reaction, no brain to analyse anything, he/she does what they are being told to do. They are not inquisitive. They do not think, and this obviously leads to lack of self-esteem. I have not found this in you and I congratulate you for believing that this Bush Administration is a total disaster. I also never met or heard of a conservative, i.e. republican who will ever change his/her affiliation, or vote democratic, or even recognizes and admits that mistakes were made.To not admit and apologize for mistakes made,
In my opinion, is a lack of "maturity" and that what Bush and his cronies are clearly demonstrating. Being stubborn
and forceful does not mean being a "leader", it means, in my book, being ignorant and stupid.
I am not one of those who have e-mailed you asking you about yourself. I preferred to be patient and eventually, I thought, I will have the answers, one way or another, because I must admit I was too curious.
I like your posts and sometimes I contribute my opinion.
Thanks for writing.
I have the same voting record, and Kerry was the first Dem I voted for. There are many more of us out there than it's given credit for. Yes, I'm angry about the war, and it's totally colored my view about this administration.
I live in Britain, so the whole game is different, but, in common, we have the problem that there is no safe haven for traditional conservative/libertarians.
In the recent elections here, we were faced with a choice of a high-tax xenophobic set of possible liars against a high-tax less xenophobic set of certain liars.* We chose the certain liars (better the devil you know...). But it's still really difficult to work out where a small-statist, balanced-budget conservative should go, because each party tries to outdo the other in better provision of state services.
I'm beginning to conclude that the culture in Britain today is one of appeal to government; each accident causes people to ask for more regulation. Personal responsibility appears to be increasingly unpopular, which is sad, for a democracy which begins to give up its personal responsibility is more likely to give up its collective responsibility to uphold its freedoms and liberties.
*Ignoring the Liberal Democrats, who aren't an option for anybody who wants low taxes.
I think the posts above clearly indicate the uselessness of the right/ left: conservative/ liberal dicotomies. Surely it is true that in defining political color, these ordinations are accurate in the broadest sense and precise in no sense. Statements that contain these conciets are ussually useless and end up, on examination, being overly conditional and cumbersome. They line up the putative enemies in forces against each other, but by the time thier allegances are established they have become tenative loyalties at best and there is no crisis in conflict. Without an arguement, there is no conclusion so we all end up chasing our own tails.
I'll just chalk you up to being a slow learner. But a learner, nevertheless! ;-)
(Bush in 2000?? Oy, you weren't paying much attention, I guess, because nothing that's happened in the last 5 years has come as much of a shock to me. Well, except for maybe the sheer scale of their medacity. And the complete stupidity of the American public to elect him the first time, and then RE-ELECT him a second.)
I enjoy your blog. It's refreshing to hear a rational Republican.
I can only justify Bush as a willfully uninformed ego maniac. No other explanation makes sense. I no longer see which group he thinks he is benefitting. The putative left insists he stands for business but I can't even see that anymore. He really is a terrible president on so many levels I no longer understand why people respect him.
I am beginning to think he satisfies some fin de sicle american vision that people talk about sometimes, the city on the hill thing - utterly unworkable and unilateral - that americans think it is some how thier country's soveriegn destiny. People living outside the US think it quite comic but I understand that inside the US it is taken very seriously.
Anyway, GW is a mess and its going to take awhile to clean up after he's gone.
Clinton and Bush Jr. both made me miss Bush Sr. The Gulf War - paid for by a coalition of nations - truly! George Sr. knew what he was doing. Junior struggles on.
Actually, I know quite a few people, in their 40s and 50s, who, like me, went thru a phase of relative conservatism (in my case, since I started from very liberal, this meant I became a liberal to moderate democrat in the early to mid 90s), but have now returned to political views similar to those they held when younger, i.e. more liberal. I believe that the obvious threat from the Right in this country has made many people realize that much of the 80s and 90s deregulation and tax cuts, especially when NOT accompanied by fiscal restraint, has been bad, bad bad for this country.
I do think, however, that the prospects of a reemergent Clinton dynasty are about zero. Look elsewhere, Democrats, there are plenty of smart people with a lot of ideas, and our time is coming.
Good show on the Kerry vote, if there was one thing that was obvious to me in the previous election it was that the candidates were a choice of honest vs. dishonest. The Rovian machine has done a masterful job of covering the sordid past of GW Bush and in regards to Kerry they used a bunch of slanderous lies to defeat him but if he even had a parking ticket in his past we would have been made well aware of it.
If Clinton and Bush can get a long, maybe the Clinton moneybag haters can give it a rest too.
How did Kerry fulfill the role of "honest"?
Or "principaled"?
How ridiculous.
Recognizing the difference between an authentic conservative & a neocom becomes easier as the GOP & the President fall farther into the embrace of the theocrats, dominionists, & secular think tank Empire Builders. I've alwats tried to test my liberal ideas (& ideals) against the two basic conservative questions: 1. Why is this change (war, program, law) necessary? 2. How will you pay for it? The Republicans now provide only two reasons for anything: 1. Because we want it. 2. Because God wants it.
Liberal or conservative. As usual the semantics makes the difference. As defined by Forrester Church in his great book "God and other famous Liberals" God is the ultimate Liberal. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802774830/qid=1137152203/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8342920-0119957?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Review:
Midwest Book Review
With history and the Holy Scriptures as his guide, the Reverend Forrest Church takes on the religious right and political conservatives on three fronts: religion, patriotism, and family values. Emphasizing the strong connection between liberalism and democracy, he debunks the myth of the moral superiority of the conservative viewpoint. With an excellent forward by Anne Eleanor Roosevelt, God And Other Famous Liberals is divided into three sections: Reclaiming the Bible (The Most Famous Liberal of All; God's Son Jesus; The Holy Spirit); Reclaiming the Flag (With Liberty for All; We Hold These Truths; One Nation Under God); and Reclaiming the Family (Your Mother is a Liberal; E Pluribus Unum). The book concludes with an Epilogue, Appendix; and an Index. God And Other Famous Liberals is recommended reading for everyone, freethinker or religionist, who support the principles of church-state separation, and whose are saddened by the spectacle of the Religious Right claiming moral superiority over not only the "Godless Humanist" but the Religious Left as well. Insightful, very well written in an engaging style, and as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote: "This thoughtful and and spirited book reminds us all that the Bible and the flag are not the private property of the radical right. " Forrest Church is pastor of All Souls Unitarian Church in New York City, and the author of numerous books including: Father and Son, Everyday Miracles, and The Seven Deadly Virtues.
Granted book is written with an agenda but does make valid points re: seperation of church and state etc.
Enjoy your Blog. Thanx
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TCR is Josh
Who do you think you are fooling?
See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Looking for information and found it at this great site...
» »
As un-vogue as it may be, it IS likely there is a large genetic component to it, so you (or your parents) probably couldn't do much about it in any event. Of course the genotype's expression is not so basely political (no one is born a "pinko" or neo-fascist), as much as it affects higher-order traits such as "empathy" or "familiarity preference", themselves precursors to political ideology...
Hm. Did you ever have an algebra teacher named Mrs. Lynch?
Do you can write anything else about it? Great article!
To my mind every person may look at it.
Well, I don't really believe it is likely to have success.
Post a Comment
<< Home