Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Dagny

What Political Party Do You Vote For?

Rate this topic

What Political Party Do You Vote For?  

73 members have voted

  1. 1. What Political Party Do You Vote For?

    • Republican
      21
    • Democratic
      3
    • Libertarian
      11
    • Green Party
      2
    • Independent
      6
    • I Don't Vote
      8


Recommended Posts

mostly i have voted Republican in the past, but then i don't agree with all republican issues. for instance i'm pro-choice. as elections are coming up I'm curious as to what my fellow objectivists choose when they go to vote, if at all.

Don't forget to let us know why you vote for your political party in the forum replies. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican party is, in my experience, usually the lesser of the evils most likely to win any election, which is why I'm voting for Bush in the coming election.

As far as abortion is concerned, Abortion Is Pro-Life has a great collection of essays and other material on the subject for anyone interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know everyone is opposed to libertarians because of some of their fundamental ideological differences, but I see it as the best way to vote in this day and age. If libertarians got in office. It would take decades to remove the government from all the aspects of life that it now controls. And it would be a step in the right direction, in comparison to what any other party would ever get accomplished. I find it much easier to elect a libertarian than to completely convert the "religious" republican party to Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Republican party is, in my experience, usually the lesser of the evils most likely to win any election, which is why I'm voting for Bush in the coming election.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

To vote for a member of any government funded political party is to give your moral sanction to a system that is fundamentally corrupt.

When it comes to voting, and yes I do vote in every election, I only vote for issues. In fact the last time I went to vote was during the primaries. It was easy since I only had one issue to vote on, the rest having to do with candidates for one postion or another. The one issue was for a new civic center in the suburb I live in. I voted no of course, as I always do on tax increases. Thankfully it did not pass.

The system is rotten to it's very core, and it will only get better when the lights finally go out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not an American, so I don't get to vote in U.S. elections, but I would vote Repulican if I could. (I have voted so in this poll...hope you don't mind.) :P

I find it much easier to elect a libertarian than to completely convert the "religious" republican party to Objectivism.

Libertarians are religious too, and their religion--Christianity mixed with libertarianism--is no better than the religion of Republicans.

If a libertarian had been President in 2001, America would by now have been completely destroyed by Islamists. Even Ron Paul, an ex-libertarian turned Republican, continues to insist that the "root cause" of terrorism is America's "meddling" in the Middle East. He thinks the solution is to "meddle" less: he was opposed to overthrowing the Taliban; he's been opposed to liberating Iraq; and he will be opposed to cleansing Iran from the crazy mullahs. The man is even kookier than Kerry--and he is a "moderate" among libertarians!

Besides, libertarians don't play for winning. Libertarianism is a loser's ideology: they think their "principles" (read: dogmas) are more important than getting elected. They would rather die than "meddle." Their lives as political candidates consist of running, losing, and then blaming Americans for not electing them. Not exactly an Objectivist way to live, is it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Choosing not to choose is still a choice.

Choosing to let others choose the greater evil for you is still choosing the greater evil.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing the best alternative available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not an American, so I don't get to vote in U.S. elections, but I would vote Repulican if I could. (I have voted so in this poll...hope you don't mind.) ;)

Libertarians are religious too, and their religion--Christianity mixed with libertarianism--is no better than the religion of Republicans.

If a libertarian had been President in 2001, America would by now have been completely destroyed by Islamists. Even Ron Paul, an ex-libertarian turned Republican, continues to insist that the "root cause" of terrorism is America's "meddling" in the Middle East. He thinks the solution is to "meddle" less: he was opposed to overthrowing the Taliban; he's been opposed to liberating Iraq; and he will be opposed to cleansing Iran from the crazy mullahs. The man is even kookier than Kerry--and he is a "moderate" among libertarians!

Besides, libertarians don't play for winning. Libertarianism is a loser's ideology: they think their "principles" (read: dogmas) are more important than getting elected. They would rather die than "meddle." Their lives as political candidates consist of running, losing, and then blaming Americans for not electing them. Not exactly an Objectivist way to live, is it!

Do you think that we should have pro choice? I do, but the republican party doesnt. Should there be a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to stop gay marraige? No, the constitution is supposed to limit government, not individuals. The republican party thinks we should have one? Do you think the president is the only person involved in wars? What makes you think that we wouldnt act in self defense, just because a libertarian is in office? I beg to differ that political stress from republicans and democrats would force a military action regardless of who is in office. Plus, Congress declares wars not the president. I think the we would all be dead argument is just a reason to try and vote republican without feeling guilty. Go ahead and choose the "lesser of two evils" (to quote an earlier post). I do not find any of my beliefs except to have a strong military to be found within the Republican party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a party voter.

I vote for the candidate who is most closely aligned with my own views, and who also is, in my view, most qualified for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that we should have pro choice? I do, but the republican party doesnt.

Correction: SOME Republicans don't. There are many pro-choice Republicans, some of whom are organized into groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus and Republicans for Choice, and who are actively working to change the party platform

BTW, there are many ANTI-choice Libs including their Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.

Should there be a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to stop gay marraige? No, the constitution is supposed to limit government, not individuals. The republican party thinks we should have one?
SOME Republicans do. Most Republicans, like most Americans, don't think we should be cluttering up the Constitution with such trivia.

Do you think the president is the only person involved in wars? What makes you think that we wouldnt act in self defense, just because a libertarian is in office? I beg to differ that political stress from republicans and democrats would force a military action regardless of who is in office. Plus, Congress declares wars not the president.

While Congress can declare war, they cannot PROSECUTE a war. That is TOTALLY an executive branch function. The President is THE Commander in Chief. If he doesn't command the military to defend us, we will not be defended.

I think the we would all be dead argument is just a reason to try and vote republican without feeling guilty.

I beg your pardon. Dismissing an argument by psychologizing about and impugning the motives of one's opponent is an ad hominem fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Choosing not to choose is still a choice.

Choosing to let others choose the greater evil for you is still choosing the greater evil.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing the best alternative available.

How can choosing evil be the best alternative available? If I am given two glasses of water, both of which contain poison, should I choose the one that looks like it has the lesser amount of poison? Or should I instead choose to not drink either?

Choosing evil is choosing evil. Even if it is the "lesser" evil. I will not choose evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can choosing evil be the best alternative available?  If I am given two glasses of water, both of which contain poison, should I choose the one that looks like it has the lesser amount of poison?  Or should I instead choose to not drink either?

Choosing evil is choosing evil.  Even if it is the "lesser" evil.  I will not choose evil.

False analogy. A better analogy: someone says, "Drink this glass with a lot of poison, drink this glass with a little poison, or I will force whichever glass I wish down your throat." It's not as if, by refraining from voting, neither candidate wins.

This is especially true today when the survival of this nation depends on who is in the White House. Bush is no friend of liberty, but the fact is, the terrorists are rooting for Kerry. And for good reason.

It is true - Bush is weak on terrorism, but I'm not sure the terrorists realize this. I think they see him as a real threat. I think he scares the hell out of them. So, unless something changes in the next five months, I will probably vote for Bush. In peace time, I wouldn't.

But we're at war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, as I said, I'm undecided. I understand Don's reasons for leaning towards Bush, but I remain concerned that Bush might do more harm than good. John Lewis made the argument better than I can over at Capitalism Magazine:

Religion will destroy the American spirit at its root in way that the emptiness of nihilism cannot. Religion offers a replacement for American individualism (God) whereas nihilism offers only--nothing. The American people--academics aside--are not ready to accept that nothing is the essence of all values. But many are willing to turn their minds over to God, and therefore to a militant socialism of the type that God intends....

Kerry IS completely vacuous, and he would equivocate on grass ("It depends on the meaning of the word 'shorter'.") But he might do an OK job of mowing if a Republican were yelling from the side "push the mower!" He might do no worse than a Republican who kept running over to a Democrat to ask if he's doing OK (and not hurting the grass), especially if the Republican claimed to be an expert on lawns while weeds covered the house.

Rather than using analogy, I'll put it directly: so far, Bush has not addressed neither Iran's nor Korea's nuclear programs in any serious way. He will not get my endorsement--and I will not accept that he is "better" than Kerry--until he ends these threats. A Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday ended: "History will not look kindly on the leaders who let Iran get the bomb on their watch." We cannot wait for history to make such judgments for us. If by November Iran is still building bombs, I vote against Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think Bush was the lesser of two evils. But now I'm not so sure.

I think Bush's religious altruism may be a bigger threat to this nation than Kerry's mediocre ideas on the war.

Kerry is a confused mess. But Bush is driven by altruism. He is running us aground, faster than Kerry could ever dream of doing. Bush is throwing us into the lion's mouth. Daily, he sacrifices American lives for the sake of the Iraqi people.

We should be marching into Iran (preferably dropping nukes on them), yet we can hardly conjure such an idea in our heads while bogged down in Iraq. I think Bush's "War on Terror" is a disaster. We have walked into an ambush in Iraq, and it is preventing us from focusing on the real enemy, which is militant Islam.

If I vote for Kerry, it would be because he is less altruistic than Bush. But I have yet to determine whether that is true or not. One piece of evidence in Kerry's favor is the fact that Kerry, and much of the left, seem to actually be disturbed by all the American deaths in Iraq. They seem to understand, at some level, that we are losing this war.

The rightwingers are pretty clueless--still under the assumption that all is going according to plan. After all, God is on our side, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't vote for parties, I vote for candidates (and ballot issues). In terms of party registration I've been all over the map: Republican, Libertarian, Decline to State, and I'm currently a registered Democrat. (My party affiliation is driven mainly by whether there is a primary election coming up in which I want to support a particular candidate. My current registration is a result of my wanting to support Edwards over Kerry in the presidential primary, based on my perception that of the two of them Edwards was the more moderate.)

On the specific question of Bush vs. Kerry, at this point I'm undecided. I had been planning to support Bush for war reasons, but that's becoming more of a toss-up as time goes by. It seems clear that we will be largely out of Iraq by November. The key war question we face now is: what next? Kerry doesn't seem to have a clue, but frankly at this point I'm not sure Bush does either.

I'm hoping that one of the candidates will lay out a more detailed set of future plans by the election. If not, I may wind up rolling dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than using analogy, I'll put it directly: so far, Bush has not addressed neither Iran's nor Korea's nuclear programs in any serious way. He will not get my endorsement--and I will not accept that he is "better" than Kerry--until he ends these threats. A Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday ended: "History will not look kindly on the leaders who let Iran get the bomb on their watch." We cannot wait for history to make such judgments for us. If by November Iran is still building bombs, I vote against Bush.

I understand that view and sympathize with it, but I think one has to have one's head pretty deep in the sand to think Kerry would do any better. That giving Bush four more years will result in religion destroying the American spirit is, in my view, a smaller risk than destruction by Islamic radicals. As someone who lives but a few miles away from D.C., that poses a real threat to my life. In the long run, the right ideas can win, but in the short run, we have to stay alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think we are significantly less likely to have a terrorist attack in America because of anything Bush has done?

I think if Bush hadn't done what he has done, we would have had one already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MisterSwig says:

If I vote for Kerry, it would be because he is less altruistic than Bush. But I have yet to determine whether that is true or not. One piece of evidence in Kerry's favor is the fact that Kerry, and much of the left, seem to actually be disturbed by all the American deaths in Iraq. They seem to understand, at some level, that we are losing this war.

Remember that these people are anti-American socialists. They *want* us to lose the war. They are not disturbed by the deaths because the deaths are needless and self-sacrificial. They are disturbed by the deaths because they are *not self-sacrificial enough.* To them, what we're doing in Iraq is unbridled, unrestrained, arrogant self-assertion--and they *hate* that. They want Americans cringing in fear, defeated, terrified, and eager to be "protected" by big government. To the extent that they will grudgingly fund a military, the left will only use it in opposition to (or, at best, without reference to) American self-interest. I agree that Bush is an altruist. But he is, like most conservatives, a thoroughly confused, inconsistent altruist. He is a pragmatic waffler and a religionist all in one. Occasionally, he shows a spine in defense of a legitimate value (tax cuts, war without UN approval)--that is what the left hates about him.

If we were in peace time, I might (like Don) vote for Kerry on the same basis that many Objectivists voted for Clinton in '92 and '96--it would energize GOP opposition and gridlock the government. In peace time, that's a great voting strategy if you're a supporter of genuine liberty. When we're at war, and one candidate's position is tantamount to surrender, if the other even shows a hint of strength, I'm afraid I'll be forced to either vote for him or abstain. I don't think I can bring myself to cast a vote that will--if Kerry wins--be interpreted as an endorsement of surrender. Perhaps Kerry will give me reason to change my mind. But if he does, he risks alienating his insane anti-American leftie base (which thinks that Bush is Hitler) and pushing them into Nader's arms. So I don't expect him to promise anything other than "reestablishing America's good reputation with the rest of the world"--that means surrendering to the French and the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, there are many ANTI-choice Libs including their Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.

Btw, Ron Paul is a registered Republican. Other than his 1988 LP candidacy, he has been a Republican representative on and off since the 70’s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think if Bush hadn't done what he has done, we would have had one already.

You're probably right, but that doesn't negate the fact that we're probably being plotted against as we speak. And I'd rather have the blame go to Kerry than to Bush's so-called aggressive policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember that these people are anti-American socialists.  They *want* us to lose the war.  They are not disturbed by the deaths because the deaths are needless and self-sacrificial.  They are disturbed by the deaths because they are *not self-sacrificial enough.*  To them, what we're doing in Iraq is unbridled, unrestrained, arrogant self-assertion--and they *hate* that.  They want Americans cringing in fear, defeated, terrified, and eager to be "protected" by big government.  To the extent that they will grudgingly fund a military, the left will only use it in opposition to (or, at best, without reference to) American self-interest.

This might apply to some, but it certainly doesn't apply to all. In my experience of discussing this with others, a significant number of people who opposed the Iraq war done so precisely because they felt that it was _not_ in America's best interests. Even myself, I struggle to picture just how exactly the invasion of Iraq has helped reduce the liklihood of more attacks on America - perhaps it has done so a little bit, but I doubt it has really had a significant effect. Many others however believe that the Iraq war has actually increased the probability of more attacks. Whether this is true or not, it is a blatent strawman to claim that these beliefs are actually based upon a hatred of America and a desire for it to 'lose'. It is possible for people to agree with the idea of a War on Terror in theory, yet have strategical disagreements with how the current one is being carried out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to my claim that "these people are anti-American socialists," Spearmint says:

This might apply to some, but it certainly doesn't apply to all. In my experience of discussing this with others, a significant number of people who opposed the Iraq war done so precisely because they felt that it was _not_ in America's best interests.
I was not referring to all opponents of the war--only to the leftists. I was responding to MisterSwig's charge that:

[...M]uch of the left[]seem to actually be disturbed by all the American deaths in Iraq.

I was pointing out that *those* people have no concern for America's best interests and/or are actively hostile to them.

Spearmint also says:

Even myself, I struggle to picture just how exactly the invasion of Iraq has helped reduce the liklihood of more attacks on America - perhaps it has done so a little bit, but I doubt it has really had a significant effect. Many others however believe that the Iraq war has actually increased the probability of more attacks. Whether this is true or not, it is a blatent strawman to claim that these beliefs are actually based upon a hatred of America and a desire for it to 'lose'. It is possible for people to agree with the idea of a War on Terror in theory, yet have strategical disagreements with how the current one is being carried out.

I'm not arguing that it is improper to think that the Iraq war is a strategic and/or moral blunder--I myself am very sympathetic to the idea that we should have taken out the Iranian regime first. But what I have a big problem with are those leftists who believe that terrorism is the product of American "imperialism" and that the way to get the terrorists to stop is to lay down our arms, withdraw within our borders, and hold summit meetings discussing the sins we must have committed to make them hate us.

I stand by my original statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not referring to all opponents of the war--only to the leftists.  I was responding to MisterSwig's charge that:
Fair enough, I took your post the wrong way in that case.

But what I have a big problem with are those leftists who believe that terrorism is the product of American "imperialism" and that the way to get the terrorists to stop is to lay down our arms, withdraw within our borders, and hold summit meetings discussing the sins we must have committed to make them hate us.

Well a few of today's more threatening regimes _were_ either created or heavily aided by the US during the cold war, so the charge isn't entirely inaccurate. I think a lot of people fear that America is close to making a simlar (what they view as) mistake as that which they made previously, namely eliminating one threat at the expense of creating one that is possibly even greater. The situation we are faced with now has emerged partly a result of cold war policies, and I think many feel that the current actions America is taking to resolve it may end up having very serious consequences in the future. As is often pointed out, the fact that a country (or person) has the right to take an action does not mean that they should take it, because the consequences of said action may heavily outweight the benefits. It's one thing to say that America has the right to invade/nuke/whatever a country like Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia, but quite another to say that doing so is likely to actually make America safer in any real sense. To borrow a rather cliched quote, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Of course to infer from any of this that America should just sit back and unquestioningly accept "what they deserve" is grossly wrong, and I have very little sympathy with those who hold these and similar views. Of course America should do what it takes to defend itself, but it _must_ ensure that the actions it carries out _are_ actually going to help ensure its safety. What I find worrying is the seeemingly widespread (in my experiences) belief within some Objectivist (and Republican/neo-con) circles that any attempt to point out the potential negative consequences of an action deemed to be morally correct is akin to 'pragmatism''/'leftism', or some other derogatory term of the week. This is getting a bit offtopic though and it doesnt really apply to your posts, so I shan't pursue it any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...