So You’ve Decided to Vote Republican

Or: Put down that Sharpie and back away from the constitution!

The three principle reasons that otherwise-sensible people would vote for Republicans:

“I vote for Republicans because the damn liberals want big government and higher taxes!”
Well, yes. First, let’s look at some facts. Clinton and the other Damn Dirty Liberals (DDLs) restored a budget that had been totally trashed by a dozen years of Republican administration. Under Reagan and Bush v.1.0, the budget deficit soared into the trillions of dollars. This means that there was no actual money in the federal government. In fact, it meant that the next few trillion dollars we had coming was spoken for. The DDLs decided to try something radical: not spend hundreds of billions of dollars more than they actually had. So the deficit went down (taxes did not go up and the government did not really change in size during this period, incidentally) and by the time Clinton left office the end of deficit was only a few years away. Instead of wondering how programs like Social Security were ever going to survive with the mountainous debt they faced during the Reagan years, the word ‘surplus’ was whispered. Yes, we had a surplus. Those were the days. Good ol’ 2000.

Then Bush v.2.0 came along. Instantly, the Republican spending habits of old took root (similar to knapweed or any of the “noxious” weeds) and the surplus was vaporized almost instantaneously. The same seniors who saw the senile Bush v.2.0 as a like-minded savior elected him only to watch as their primary income was trashed in the name of a larger military (which was already capable of winning a war against China, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea simultaneously). Claim the Republicans, “Deficits really don’t matter that much. The Soviet Union had a balanced budget.” Deficits matter when you’re spending your entire Social Security check on prescription drugs (which have inflated prices for reasons that I’m already too tired to get into) and then suddenly that check is halved. And the Soviet Union having a balanced budget has nothing to do with anything, unless you feel like getting into the fact that the government we spent fifty years criminalizing was apparently more fiscally responsible than any recent Republican Administration.

During the past few years, huge new departments have been created. Regardless of your opinion on their necessity towards national security, isn’t this the exact same thing the Republicans rail against every election: the creation of bigger, more expensive governments? Bush wants to increase military spending by billions of dollars, while cutting into most government social programs and ignoring all the states drowning in debt. This strikes me as somewhat off mission for them. The military is part of the government, and you’re increasing its size (this doesn’t even take into account a war with Iraq, which is seemingly inevitable and will cost billions more). Social programs aren’t increasing governmental size, they are using the money to help citizens in one manner or another. This is kinda what governments are around for, correct? And for all the “States’ Rights” rhetoric from the Elephant Party, when it comes down to either lending a hand or burning cash on a missile defense system, they’re hanging everyone out in the wind so they can have expensive new toys.

Taxes. Now stay with me, I have a point this time. Everyone who has a job loses a fair amount of cash to insurance companies every check, including health insurance, which is routinely monitored by the most caring entities our society has created, the enormous corporations (hereafter referred to as “Scumbags”). If there is one thing which should have nothing to do with profits, isn’t it health? When health care is privatized as it is in the Republican Land of Happiness, Scumbags record different earnings based on whether or not people under their care are healthy. If Joe gets sick and requires medical attention, the hospital must spend money in order to help him. Then the Scumbags are billed for it, and a good chunk of the money Joe paid for insurance is lost. Roger, on the other hand, got sick but decided to tough it out and not go to the hospital. The Scumbags pocket all of the health coverage money Roger gave them. “Say, wouldn’t we be making more money if everyone was like Roger? What if we had a rule that no one who didn’t absolutely need medical care could get it? Then we’d make more money! Why are we fixing Joe up when he’s bound to die anyway at some point? If we’re going to bother, maybe we could at least give him the cheap and less effective medicine instead of the really good, expensive stuff with no side effects. He’s tough, he’ll live through it. And if he lives, we continue to get paid. So, no one loses!” Welcome to the world of HMOs! Health care decisions should not be made when profit is at stake, period. DDLs would love to get rid of that nasty health insurance bill you pay every month, replacing it with a smaller tax that supported universal health care. Taxes higher! Oh no! But costs lower. Plus medical decisions are no longer tied to profits. Without profit motivation, costs are streamlined and the whole system is cheaper. I’m sorry, why are you opposing this? Health care is just one issue that suffers from a naive trust in enormous corporations, and somehow thinking that this time they won’t fleece you for everything you’ve got.

“I vote for Republicans because the damn liberals want to get religion out of the schools and our daily lives!”
Well, yes. I’m not even about to get into a religious debate here. Our country was founded on Christian principles and I understand that. Most of the country remains Christian. That’s cool too. But this country was really founded on religious freedom, and many of the Europeans that came over first were trying to escape religious tyranny they were facing back home. So you can’t have it both ways. People were happy Christians because they weren’t told how to worship. You can’t flaunt our country’s wonderful freedoms then turn around and tell the Buddhist next door that he’s wrong and ought to get lost. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with anyone. You can start your own religion where you are the God and everyone should be giving you cash and prizes. But you can’t get snippy when no one else is on board.

When it comes to schools, science classes are places of scientific theory and fact. Definitive proof of evolution exists, whereas proof of Creationism does not. That a lot of people believe in Creationism does not constitute proof. A lot of people watch ‘Joe Millionaire’ too, it’s not proof that it’s a good show. If there was more proof that a god created human beings in his own image, that would be the theory we’d teach and Evolutionists would quote some obscure book by a guy named Darwin. (Did you know? The Pope himself endorses Evolution!) It certainly doesn’t mean that a god wasn’t responsible somewhere along the line. Creationism is just one of many religious principles that should not be taught in public environments. They depend on one view of a definite god doing definite things. No one is stopping you from praying, or believing in Creationism. That’s why America is good, remember? But you can’t force others to believe in Creationism any more than they can force you to not believe in it.

“I vote for Republicans because the damn liberals think the environment is more important than people’s jobs!”
Well, yes. The long-term health of the environment is dependent on safe extraction of minerals, conservative logging practices, and, in general, spending a little more money or producing just a little bit less in order to create less waste. Yet most corporations find this concept ridiculous: “Why would we make less money if we could make more?” Um, so that in fifty years we don’t have to breath through filters every time we go outside? Or so we’re not hip-deep in styrofoam cups and unrecyclable plastic containers? I think the basic problem is that because the negative results are not easily seen, they’re ignored. “I can’t feel the Earth growing warmer every year, so it’s not happening. It has to be a myth, or else I might make less money next year.” Even those most resistant to the facts have conceded that, yes, global warming is happening right now. Instead of denial of existence, however, now we’re hearing denial of effect. “The mean global temperature has only risen one degree a decade since the 1940s. And even I know that ‘one’ isn’t all that much!” In global temperature terms, “one” is a lot. More than a couple degrees and weather patterns become seriously skewed. A few hundred million years ago, a comet slammed into our planet and kicked up a bunch of dust. The thickening of the atmosphere drove the temperature up a few degrees. It actually wasn’t a big deal, provided you weren’t one of the 95% of all species that died as a result, including the dinosaurs.

So those are probably the major three. I guess the other one is “I just trusted [Republican Candidate] more than I trusted [Democratic Candidate]”. Well, if you trusted either person you were missing the whole point, I think. But let’s address it anyway. So, all of you who are from multi-millionaire families and attended Ivy League schools because your parents did, raise your hands...Okay. I have no beef with you personally, but why do the rest of you believe that those raising their hands can relate to your problems? Does Bush v.2.0 understand that you have a tough time paying all of your bills because you only made $30,000 last year? The man has never had a job outside of CEO or Major League Baseball Owner (for the Texas Rangers even, who give Alex Rodriguez $25 million a year while they don't bring in any pitching--fiscal responsibility at its finest) in his life. So, no, I think it’s safe to say he doesn’t get it. Do you think Bush v.2.0 understands how it feels when your grandmother has to eat nothing but rice every day so she can pay for the drugs that keep her alive every month? Do you think he has experience with being repeatedly screwed over by car companies, phone companies, insurance companies, mega-grocery chains, and Wal-Mart? Most people in this country are part of the middle or lower economic classes and have to deal with all of those problems. No money for basic needs, being dehumanized by work and enormous companies because they know there’s essentially nothing you will be able to easily do about it. The guys at the top of these companies did not work their way up. They were given cushy management positions right out of prestigious schools, like, say, Bush v.2.0. I’m sorry, but they just do not understand the problems most people have to deal with. So why would they understand their corporate policies are damaging anything? Easy not to worry about problems you don’t have the experience to understand.

Let’s give the naive, super-easy checklist just to summarize:

Vote Republican if you feel the following are true:

___I think enormous corporations are trustworthy and honest and should be in charge of every aspect of our daily lives.

___I think it’s fiscally responsible for the government to spend $400 billion a year on the military, instead of say $399 billion and leaving the remaining billion (with a ‘b’) dollars for schools

___Despite that fact that I live within it, I don’t care if the environment is stripped of all protections and left at the mercy of profit-minded corporations

___My personal beliefs should govern your actions (and vice versa)

---------------------------

You know what? My standards are so low at this point that I'll be happy provided the Dividend Tax doesn't get eliminated and we don't go to war over oil and politics. Why do I still worry I'm asking for too much?

Features index

2003 BuriedintheNoise.com
Permission for reproduction will be granted if you ask nicely.