Culturalism · Federal Government · Uncategorized

The Wrath of Undecideds

MSNBC recently interviewed an Ohio voter to gauge his opinion of the Trump-Biden debate. The chap, who is undecided, gave a prototypical spiel about both candidates being negative, and asked them to provide more specifics. I had to stifle a laugh, because his line is so grimly predictable for an “independent moderate.” Such folks are trotted out every election, almost as if to maintain the fantastic faith people place in democracy, and the notion that votes somehow matter. The race becomes all about those swing ballots, with politicians desperately courting the enlightened few in hopes of seizing that magical 50.1 percent ticket so their legacy is protected. Democracy lives another glorious day.

But does it really? This sycophantic obsession with undecideds may warm individual hearts, yet in truth it simply masks the great scam which is civic duty in the United States. Headstrong souls march about feeling self-important in front of the reporter’s microphone, when in fact they reveal the bitter shallows of their own brain, and those of the comrade travelers nearby.

Fly back to 2012 for a moment. Obama and Romney were battling it out for the sainted executive office, and CNN began its custom of assembling a car of simpletons identified by their unwillingness to pick red or blue ahead of the election. Easily the most infuriating to hear blabber was our friend Joe:

The picture is everything here. Despite claiming to be the former owner of a flooring company, which probably required him to manage employees and make tough decisions, Stoltz remained dreamy-eyed until the very end, also demanding “more specifics” from Diversity Corporate Guy and Magic Underwear Corporate Guy.  Perhaps I expect too much of people, but how difficult is it to predict what a president will do based on history? Republicans like to spend on the military and cut taxes for the rich, while Democrats increase trans-revenue and expand welfare. Overlap exists, but namely on the Carebearland question.

 For a grown man who has lived through different elections to be still playing footsie with both parties right before the balloting day indicates either a lazy mind or pure ignorance, but not the foundations for brilliance and the sanctity of the vote. Joey would ultimately cast his paper for Obama after the president “was forceful” when responding to Romney, and because Billy Boy Clinton endorsed him. Furthermore, Obama’s mention of education in the debate really sealed the deal:

“That third debate sunk it all the way in for me — since I am in school and Obama was focused on education.”

That’s right, he voted for a politician who dropped the “education” word in a televised debate, because he is also in school. These are the creatures holding out to the end, my friends. Child-like minds agitating over trigger words and the prospect of being given something. Here are a couple more photos for good measure:

Is this the Try Guys convention?
Who’s writing this blog again?
The undecided “Radical for Jesus”

Ahh, is democracy not happiness?          


Choose Your Slavery Wisely

Having an online discussion about politics and economics is really like a relationship; you don’t agree on much, and at the end of the day, someone is a fascist or just plain evil. The middle ground, wherever it might be hiding, should just retire to neglect and celibacy.

In point, people seem intractable when it comes to their views on the State or the “Galt,” which I’ll use here in place of the private sector. Modern political parlance maintains that you are either pro-government intervention because the corporate honchos are bad (leftist), or in favor of limiting the State to make way for economic prosperity (conservative). Snap. Crackle. MAGA.

The main problem arriving with these attitudes is the danger of tethering your destiny to close on one or the other. As far as I am concerned, the State is a necessary evil. We join a social pact of sorts and give up certain types of freedom in exchange for baseline security, enforcement of contracts, and infrastructure organization. Definitely not perfect, but it is there.

Corporations on the other hand provide opportunities for employment, technological development, and the chance to invest for retirement. The negatives lie in corrupt practices, cost-cutting at the expense of workers, and political influence.

Leftists and conservatives seem intent on destroying one in the name of the other. We hear endless refrains about evil corporations or the excesses of government, and the two extremes become moral competitors for the political religion of the masses. Listen to them for a few minutes and you might swear they are ready to “bend the knee” in service for the cause.

But should anyone want to? Being a fellow comrade in some Stalinist regime doesn’t sound appealing, but neither is the tepid wage-slave existence we are marching towards with mainline global capitalism. Both can abuse you, and while the latter probably won’t put a gun to your head, they can slowly poison you with preservatives and excessive sugar. Guess it’s a happy death though.

The reason Centrism exists is because the balance is necessary. There are some places where the government can safeguard our rights as individuals and workers, and others where Galt is unquestionably suited for the job. They complement and check one another, so long as we watch them closely.

Otherwise, it might be a taskmaster in a worker’s cap or a pristine yuppie in his best suit, but you still are a slave.