Posted on 04/05/2007 7:32:20 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent
TAKE MY QUIZ: Hold Your Nose or Cut it Off?
At least for now, the two-party system is entrenched in American politics. So, come Election Day in 2008, the fact is that there will be two viable candidates for the office of President of the United States.
In other words, in 2008, it is a major statistical likelihood that the newly elected president will be a member of the Democrat or Republican party.
What's at stake in a presidential election?
How many people are you actually voting "for" (or "against") when you cast your vote on Election Day?
Does it matter that the *party* of the person elected President comes to power along with the President?
TAKE MY QUIZ AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!
Let's get started.
Answer the following questions:
About how many political appointments are made just in Washington, D.C. when a new administration is installed?
*** Answer here at #93.
About how many political appointments are made in the federal government as a whole when a new administration is installed?
*** Answer here at #94.
About how many people are employed by the new president directly in the Executive Office?
*** Answer at #95.
About how many people are hired by the new president to serve on the White House staff?
*** Answer at #96.
About how many political appointees are there in national, state and local governments combined?
*** Answer here at #33.
Who nominates military officers for promotion to general / flag officer?
*** Answer here at #210.
True or False: When you cast your vote for President of the United States, you are voting for (or against) a candidate, a political party and its long-standing "machine," and the administration assembled by the candidate and the party working together.
True or False: When you cast your vote for President of the United States, you are voting for (or against) the influence in our government and, thus, on our country wielded by the joint political actions of the president and his party.
NOW IT'S TIME TO NAME SOME NAMES!
First, pick ANY Democrat as that party's presidential candidate and pick ANY Republican as that party's presidential candidate.
Secondly, review the "15 departments and numerous agencies which together make up the 'government' that we see every day."
These departments and agencies "are responsible for administering the law, enforcing it, and delivering various governmental services. Their functions are far-reaching and affect the lives of every American."
Now, take the quiz!
Look at each department/agency and consider the candidates you have chosen as well as their respective party's political machine. Match the names of individuals to the organizations that you conclude would be likely to be appointed by---or which are representative of the appointments you think would be made by----the candidate to that organization.
For example:
[Fill in the blank] Democrat v. [Fill in the blank] Republican.
Department of Defense, Secretary of Defense:
----- Wes Clark (D) v. Tommy Franks (I, leaning R)
Department of Justice, Attorney General of the United States:
----- Jamie Gorelick (D) v. Eugene Scalia
Ambassador to the United Nations:
----- Bill Clinton (D) v. John Bolton (R)
When you're done, compare your list and decide if you think it impacts the country one way or the other whether the Democrats, headed by [fill in the blank], or the Republicans, headed by [fill in the blank] take power in 2008. Ready?
(The following information is taken from this overview of the federal government.)
The Executive Branch departments, each with a Secretary appointed by the President:
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Other top Executive Branch officials that may have cabinet-level status:
The President's Chief of Staff (and his staff)
Director, Office of Management and Budget
U.S. Trade Representative
Director, Environmental Protection Agency
Director, Central Intelligence Agency
The President's National Security Advisor
Some examples of Executive Branch independent agencies and commissions:
U.S. Postal Service
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Major regulatory agencies, which are " an especially powerful type of agency . . . [that] make rules that affect nearly every business and consumer:
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Food and Drug Administration (in HHS) (FDA)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (in DOL) (OSHA).
Federal Reserve System
One more, just to give a hat-tip to the many appointments the President makes to ambassadorships, and similar positions, around the world:
Ambassador to the United Nations
Well, that's it for now. Of course, my quiz can't cover every position that will be filled by the next President of the United States in conjunction with his or her party machine. Nor can it cover all the ways in which those individuals will affect our nation. But I hope this helps you decide whether or not your vote matters.
Thanks.
The proposition you pose is a choice between two alternatives: 1) holding your nose, or 2) cutting it off.
The fallacy lies the lack of other perfectly valid options, such as 3) opening up the window and airing out the room so it doesn't stink any more.
By analogy, that corresponds to finding a genuinely conservative candidate with the cojones to lead. They're out there, you know...they just don't test well in the focus groups.
But if not . . .
Then you are wrong about this post being an example of a false dichotomy.
You may describe it any way you like, but I'd say that many conservatives would in fact view the choice between voting for, say, Rudy Giuliani and the Witch as a choice that would at least entail "holding one's nose."
The "cutting one's nose off" part comes in when a person, for whatever reason, refuses to hold one's nose and vote for "lesser of two evils" and then ends up with the worst of the two alternatives anyway.
For historical examples of this logic applied, look no further than the 1992 and 1996 general elections----when many conservatives refused to vote for ("hold their nose" for) the Republican nominee, and thus directly contributed to the election of the Clintons, twice (thus "cutting off their nose")----and 2000, in which the Rats did precisely the same thing by voting for Nader and thus directly contributing to the election of Bush, a man and a party they loathed.
Contrary to your analysis, this perfectly describes the logical situation should certain candidates be nominated for the general election.
(And, as an aside: if these candidates you speak of, I suppose in the primaries, don't even test well in focus groups, how might they persuade enough people to vote for them (1) in the primaries and then (2) in the general election?
If you want to posit "perfectly valid options" as a way to demonstrate a false dichotomy, those options have to be viable.)
The bottom line is this:
In the general election, it is beyond dispute that one of the two major party candidates is going to win the election and then, along with his party, take control of the government.
Moreover, a voter cannot avoid making this choice between the two parties, because however he votes, or if he refuses to vote, he will either directly or indirectly contribute to the election of *one of the two candidates representing the two major political parties.*
So in that sense, even though there are theoretical "options" even in the general election, the practical effect of exercising them still *only affects which of the two candidates representing the major political parties* wins.
If you vote "for" the Republican candidate, your vote first acts to cancel out a vote "for" the Rat candidate.
If all the Rat votes have been cancelled out, then your vote---albeit only one---is sufficient to elect the Republican candidate.
If you refuse to vote "for" the Republican candidate, or to vote at all, (I am assuming you would never vote directly for the Rat candidate) the first consequence of your refusal / third party vote is to allow a vote cast "for" the Rat candidate to remain uncancelled.
If all the Republican votes have been used up----meaning there are no others to be used to cancel out Rat votes---then the Rat vote that remains uncancelled (because of your refusal to vote for the Republican nominee/third party vote)----albeit only one----is sufficient to elect the Rat candidate.
This dichotomy, which is hardly false---and, indeed, is probably one of the most iron-clad dichotomies people ever face----is even more dangerous to well-meaning, but short-sighted individuals because of our Electoral College system.
Out of millions of votes cast, a few hundred----or a few dozen----in one state who would otherwise vote Republican, for example, may refuse to vote, or vote third party, and thus:
First, fail to cancel out a vote for the Rat candidate,
And secondly, perhaps allow that uncancelled vote to become the winning vote.
Yes, as our system stands now, the general election presents a dichotomy. But it is not a false one.
If the GOP is concerned about keeping Hillary out of the White House, they need to step up to the plate and give me a candidate that I can vote for.
I don’t have to answer to you for how I vote, but I do have to answer to God. I’d rather please Him than you. Rudy will never get my vote.
Of course you do not have to answer to me. That’s just dumb.
If you think it pleases God for you to use your vote in such a way (by withholding it or voting third party) that a greater evil triumphs, by all means, knock yourself out.
My conscience would not allow me to do that.
Further, how are you responsible for the choice you are confronted with in November, so long as you have done all you could to get “your” man nominated?
If your efforts don’t succeed in getting “your” candidate nominated, your conscience is still clear. At that point, you have to “render under Caeser” and give your vote to the major political party that will do, or potentially will do, the least damage to the nation.
Golly, if everybody in the Republican party held your point of view, our government would be wall-to-wall liberals with no end in sight.
Fortunately, some people will keep fighting, even if Election Day comes and their choices-—which are not of their own making-—stink.
And what do they get from the “cut and run” crowd? A bunch of high and mighty hooey about how they are too righteous to participate in the very secular process of civil government.
>>>Are there any statistics to support this assertion? Or is this just your opinion? I know a number of folks who fall into this category who honestly thought perot was the best candidate. You are also discounting the "independent voters" who probably would have voted for republicans but chose perot instead.
Isn't this too cute by half?
Yes, the people who voted for Perot no doubt thought he was the best candidate. Why?
Oh, because of taxes, NAFTA, and so on . . . because Perot was pitching a line that was more conservative on those issues.
Meaning that George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were viewed as not offering positions that were as attuned to conservatives' as Perot. I guess another way to say that is that they weren't "conservative enough"?
Same with Nader and Gore on the liberal scale.
The fact remains that voting third party is nothing but a spoiler mission set upon by those who are somehow disgruntled with the candidate of the major political party they usually otherwise align with (Independents or whatever).
Surely very few Perot or Nader voters could have thought they actually had a chance of winning. No, they thought they would "send a message," "teach a lesson," "make them pay"---which, although quite sincere and seemingly thoughtful at the time, turns out to sound awfully like a high school clique war.
Does it matter to the result visited upon the nation WHY people voted for Perot or Nader? Do you dispute that a failure to vote for the Republican candidate directly facilitates the election of the Rat candidate, and vice versa?
Spot on Smokin’ Joe.
O.K.
Tell me, if you help Rudy get the nomination knowing full well that conservatives won’t vote for him in the general election, aren’t you then responsible for Hillary being elected President?
In terms of personal responsibility, I think one has to look at one’s own conduct, not the other guy’s.
The only pertinent question, in terms of assessing personal responsibility and evaluating if one is doing the “right” thing, I think, is:
If “I” didn’t help [whoever] get the nomination, am “I” responsible for having to choose between him and the Rat candidate?
I think the answer to that clearly is “no.”
Of course, that is not the end of assessing one’s personal responsibility.
One needs to further ask:
If “I” don’t vote “for” the Republican nominee, and the inescapable practical effect of my act is to allow one vote-—perhaps even the winning vote-—”for” the Rat nominee to go unanswered (i.e., not cancelled out), does my act in fact may be responsible (part or all of the cause) for the Rat’s election?
I think the answer to that is clearly “yes.”
All “effects” have multiple “causes” if we look hard enough. We could *always* find some way to look at the next cause and the next cause and the next cause, with the end result that we would always be absolved of personal responsibility and would lead a life of claiming “the devil made me do it.”
We are born with a sinful nature, yet at some point God declares we are still responsible for our sin. We face many choices every day, of much less consequence than choosing our civil government, that involve deciding between the lesser of two evils.
The age-old question: If your ox falls in a ditch on the Sabbath, will you not pull it out?
Sometimes it seems our sense of piety grows in direct relationship to the need for pragmatism, as Jesus recognized in the example above.
Sometimes I think we unwitting fall into the trap like the Israelites, bellyaching for a certain “king” to “get it done” for us, when our spiritual tasks in this world go on regardless. As if everything depends on getting just the right “king,” then the world will be a better place.
Believe me, brother, I know where you’re coming from. But it truly disheartens me to see good people, in my view, in effect over-pietize the process of civil government and, thereby, actually give aid and comfort to greater evil.
does my act in fact may be responsible (part or all of the cause) for the Rat’s election? = does my act in fact make me responsible (part or all of the cause) for the Rat's election?
What it boils down to is that by refusing to vote for a liberal Republican such as Rudy, and making that position known well in advance of the primaries, conservatives will be no more responsible for Hillary (or some other Democrat)being elected than would those who voted for the liberal Republican candidate in the primary knowing full well that the liberal would not be capable of winning in the general election.
If you are truly concerned about keeping Hillary out of the White House, then you need to get behind a candidate that can carry the conservative vote, and that won’t be Rudy.
I can’t agree with that kind of gamesmanship, or that by supposedly telling others how you will react to “their” actions, you absolve youself of responsibility for your actions.
For one thing, no one individual can control the outcome of the primaries. It is not appropriate to treat others as though they can.
Besides, isn’t the bottom line what is best for the country? Isn’t that, not “I told you so,” what one should be thinking about on Election Day?
Do *you* want to keep the Rat party from political power in this country? Then *you* need to vote against it, if that’s what it takes. That’s pretty much all there is to it.
This is a very interesting point, but my answer must remain "no."
I view it as a person is *always* responsible for his vote, regardless of the choices he is confronted with in voting.
One thing I look at is this: every concerned voter has the opportuntity to affect the outcome of the primaries. If those who are against [x] are not powerful enough to nominate [y], whose "fault" (for lack of a better word right now) is that?
Is it the "fault" of those who had the burden of persuading (those who wanted [y] nominated) or the "fault" of those who were not persuaded (and thus supported [x])?
That's one thing that has been totally lacking from this discussion elsewhere on FR: the implications of who has the "burden of persuasion."
Obviously, the *proponent* has the burden of persuasion. If a sufficiently large number of people are not persuaded to one's position, that means that, for whatever reason, the proponent failed to persuade.
So if a sufficiently large number of people fail to be persuaded to one's point-of-view, it's not appropriate to turn around and claim they are responsible for not being persuaded. Sure, people sometimes are pig-headed and ignorant. But that's part of the natural landscape in trying to win over people to your point-of-view.
If you were to persuade me that Rudy is the best candidate that the GOP could field (which you have not done), then I would be in a position of having to decide if it were more important to keep a Democrat out of the White House, or to send a message to the GOP.
Since I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Rudy is a better liberal than Hillary, I really think that the GOP would be better off losing the election, and possibly learning a lesson. Both Hillary and Rudy would do serious harm to the nation, but Rudy would also do serious harm to the GOP. In that sense, Hillary would be the lesser of two evils.
I will not be sold down the river by a RINO. To any potential candidate I say "Win my vote or get out of my face." And that's just the way it is.
Suit yourself. But don’t claim to be applying logic when analysing the impact of your decision on the question of who will govern beginning in 2008.
Eh. Your scare tactics leave me unimpressed. Not only do they not work on me, they're ineffective for the cause. If you want me to vote for Guiliani, don't put on a Hillary mask and go "Booga Booga." Rather, explain to me how a vote for Guiliani is a vote toward restoration of constitutional government.
Because that's what wins my vote.
Of course he isn't.
I really think that the GOP would be better off losing the election, and possibly learning a lesson.
This never works.
And this sounds an awful lot like deliberately doing harm to our country in the hope that good will result. Those are treacherous waters, in my view.
Further, I think the only thing to consider on Election Day is the impact of the result on the nation. I frankly don't care about its impact on the GOP, or any political party.
Parties ebb and flow. So be it.
The GOP is nothing but a vehicle through which like-minded individuals voluntarily associate for the purpose of attempting to get the best political results they can for the country. So I believe the focus should only be on doing what's best for the country.
Nothing will "kill" conservatism, even if (and I don't believe it would) the GOP were to peter out over our immediate future. Ideas are eternal.
The pro-life movement, for example, isn't going to end if a liberal Republican president is elected, any more than it would end if a liberal Rat president were elected. I know I'm not giving up the faith one way or the other.
If a Rudy Giuliani is elected, I think it will say a lot more about our times than the direction of our party or our nation. After WWII, the Republican party nominated Eisenhower, who not only was only semi-Republican, he hated much about the GOP and they hated much about him. But the mopping up after the war could not be trusted to the Rats (it never can be), and the nation looked to the party of grown-ups who knew Job #1 was hiring the right man to oversee the wind-up of the war.
If it comes about that no conservative gets traction for the GOP nomination, I think it will be because of many of the same dynamics. We are at war. There is no sitting VP running. Our opponents are thoroughly anti-war and anti-this-war. Sometimes you must do what you must do.
Finally, you wrote: Since I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Rudy is a better liberal than Hillary,
That's the whole point of this thread. I think if you sat down and thought through what each administration would look like, you *would* see a difference.
As I posted in my choices, I think at #73 or 76, at the minimum I see a John Murtha type as the Rat SECDEF and a John McCain type as the Republican SECDEF. (Actually, Rudy might possibly have a SECDEF that is quite a bit stronger than John McCain.)
I see a great deal of difference in the viewpoints represented by those two individuals, and I conclude that difference---in terms of its impact on our armed forces, the war, the nation, our future---is worth fighting for. And worth voting for a liberal Republican over a liberal Rat, if it comes to that.
By the way, do you dispute that if the Republican candidate does not, as you said, “win your vote,” your refusal to vote or your third party vote directly contributes to the election of the Rat candidate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.