Two sides of the same coin

by davidpm | September 30, 2008 at 01:35 pm
81 views | 0 Recommendations | 4 comments

Back in one of my previous posts, I noted that the two major party candidates didn’t really offer any diversity.  They were pretty much the same in their views.  In talking with people in the offline world about this posting, I heard a lot of disagreement about this view.  I think, then, that given this confusion, there is some need to elaborate on what “different” really means.  Before I begin, however, I want to point out that many of these ideas are not strictly my own.  Frankly, I’m not that bright.  I’ve done a lot of reading lately focusing on the opposition that people have to these candidates and some of these views come from that reading.  I think that one of the best ways that we can decide whether to vote for someone is to ask everyone that won’t vote for them the reason why.  If this reason is not really valid, then I can brush it aside. If it is, then I have one more tool to make a valid decision.

If you look at the policy positions of the two candidates, I’m sure that you can find some things that appear different.  For example, you might cite for me a difference in tax policy.  McCain wants to lower corporate taxes to open up the economy to corporations.  Barack Obama wants to lower your taxes and raise the corporate tax to make up the difference.  Barack Obama wants to divert our military resources to Afghanistan while McCain wants to finish the job in Iraq.  McCain wants private health insurance savings accounts while Obama wants socialized medicine (*shudder*).  I could go on and on about these things that, I’ll agree, appear to be a difference in policy.  In fact, they look like polar opposites.  Let me show you that they’re really not.

Take, for example, the whole war situation.  There’s no difference between the two candidates because they both support continuing large scale fighting.  Their only bickering about where it should be.  That’s not a difference.  They both support a large military and the nation building that we’ve been trying to achieve for decades.  They’ve both refused to take the first strike initiative of the Bush administration off the table (specifically in regard to Iran).  They both advocate keeping US troops stationed in 130 countries around the world (that’s not a typo).

In regard to the tax policy, they’re both looking to take your money to support a way over sized federal government.  McCain simply wants to keep your taxes where they are and take the money from you.  Obama wants to tax corporations, who will raise prices to compensate for the taxes, which means that you will eventually pay for that tax increase anyway.  Both candidates support the big government with all the unnecessary and wasteful spending.  Neither has talked about how to trim the budget to reduce the deficit.  In fact, both have introduced plans that will further increase the deficit.  Again, there’s no real difference to speak of here.

I could go on through every issue.  Many of the issues could easily be boiled down to the following statement:  Neither candidate has the authority to control your life in this way.  Both candidates wish to do so. Neither honors the Constitution with his policies and in the end, we’ll be left with the exact same thing as the last 8 years.

Both candidates have used the phrase “If you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.”  That statement could not be more true.

recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
sherrold

I'm sorry, but you appear to be an idiot. Yes, an argument could be made that both candidates are deeply committed to the corporate status quo, where private property is more important than people, or equity, or democracy. 

Nevertheless, your thesis has been proven wrong, *painfully* wrong, by the last eight years. People like you argued that Gore and Bush weren't that different. They voted to Nader, "to make a point" that they weren't going to be stampeded into choosing between "tweedledumb and tweedledumber". Which lead to eight years of Bush.

Can you honestly say that Gore would have led us to war in Iraq? Would have ordered scientists in the EPA, NASA, NOA and other government agencies to lie about scientific findings? Would have... No. I'm going to list the hundreds of crimes and catastrophes of this administration. Suffice it to say, there is a HUGE difference between bad and worse.


0
Amy Judd

Please don't call people idiots.

0
Albert Einstein

May I refer to myself as an idiot ?

0
davidpm

To me, it's pretty sad that you think that you have to choose bad because you don't want worse.  I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, but I'll be voting for a third party candidate this year (not Nader again).  I'm going to vote for who I think is good.  If everyone keeps settling for bad and worse, we'll never get to a point where we can transition to good.  I'll happily "throw away my vote" (as is the common argument against voting for a third party) to be able to say that I voted for a good candidate and gave some credence to their points of view.


I don't think that my thesis has been proven wrong.  You're still looking at these issues at a very microscopic level.  We're saying that we want change but the difference between these current candidates is on that microscopic level.  If we step back and put them side by side on a more macroscopic level, we can see that there's not much difference.

Again, they both support an interventionist, overly expensive foreign policy.  Both think that the government should have a hand in education and other social issues, they simply differ on how they're going to take your money and meddle in your life.  Again, there is that small difference, but it's merely the illusion of choice. 

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from