/feedback
-reader mail

* Election 2000: Redux *

Francis,

It’s Neil Schlick (as my e-mail address might have given away.) I don’t know if you remember me, we once met and were accosted by Police for building a paintball arena in the drainage zone near your neighborhood. I don’t believe we have spoken since that weekend, but Morgan speaks of you often enough that I still am aware of your existence.

I was reading your feedback section and saw the e-mail from Steve Tripp. Seeing as how we had not spoken in some time, I figured I should have some sort of issue to speak on before I resumed contact with you (so as to avoid appearing creepy and overly eccentric, something which I have clearly failed miserably in avoiding.)

But I digress. Mr. Tripp (hereafter to be known as M.A.W.G., for middle-aged white guy) spoke of getting behind the Democratic party and shutting the hell up so that the democratic party could get its proverbial groove-thang on, and you calmly begged to differ, citing that if the green party were to get 3% of the vote they could get further funding and such. This man drives me out of my mind. He proudly supports Gore, saying that “…it is quite likely that we would be pursuing a significantly different direction if Gore were president.” I should first state that I am neither Democrat nor Republican, I am more a Libertarian that anything, but I align myself with no specific parties. More that anything else, I despise the type of person that M.A.W.G. is making himself out to be.

It is not my intention to flame-mail him, simply to point out how stupid he is. So, let’s make this clear: Steve, I think you are stupid. Stooooo-pid. Not because you back Gore, but because you think things would’ve been different under him. From the start it seemed clear to me that Gore and Bush were the same person wearing different suits. Gore seemed to be a fan of brown and Bush of a blue-grey. Again with the digression.

It seems to me that the Democrat and Republican parties are really the same thing, and the candidates of the 2000 election simply broadcasted this point loud and clear, the only difference being what each aspirant’s disability was. Gore’s was his insanity and that he is secretly a robot, Bush’s was his stupidity and his inability to string together multisyllabic phrases. Their stances on issues were essentially the same, and nothing would take anything more than a middle of the road stance on anything. Why do you suppose the election was so close? Might it be because there was absolutely no difference between the two, and so all the undecided found themselves still quite undecided come that ugly November 5?

I found myself siding more with Bush than Gore during the election, because stupid is easy to handle, but crazy is unpredictable. Sure, Bush might be able to rustle up the brain cells in order to remember the names of the diplomats, but Gore might have them killed. I find that more and more I despair when I think of voting. I get pissed off every time I see one of those commercials talking about “when you don’t vote, you’re signing yourself off to a life of drugs and anal-rape from a 7 foot tall man named Mouse.” Since when did scare tactics become an appropriate method of getting people to register? Why should we be pressuring more uneducated fucktards to get out there and make an uneducated guess at who will make the best puppet to the corporations, or should I say President? As an aside, I would like to say that the spell check recommended “bustards” as a possible replacement for “fucktards.” So we’re all clear on this, the bustard is apparently “Any of various large, long-legged Old World game birds of the family Otididae that frequent dry, open, grassy plains.”

At one point, I meant to say that those who voted for Ralph Nader and various other underdog parties are probably those I would get along with best. We need to be encouraging that type of person to vote, not the bubble gum pop consumer whores turned “conscious voters” that we’ve got heading for the booths currently. I’m not saying that just because you voted for the guys who never win makes you better than someone who voted for the guy who technically did win but didn’t really win or the other guy who did win but lost out on a technicality, I’m just saying that I would bet those voting for smaller parties are much more conscious of where their candidate stands on the issues.

I guess that’s my whole piece, if you consider it worthy I would like to see this on the feedback, in case Mr. Tripp looks in from time to time.

Yours most eccentrically,

Neil Schlick

Neil,

Another hilarious and well-written e-mail- you, my friend, are brilliant. I do indeed recall you, as well as the last two e-mails which you sent me. As far as Morgan goes, Morgan is a daffy bastard, and he truly embodies the wisdom of that old adage: “Daffy bastards speak of much, though with little import.”

I am in sincere agreement with your e-mail. During the elections of 1996, I felt I knew where each of the candidates stood; there were sincere differences between Dole and Clinton’s policies, and it was clear and easy to see who stood where. During the elections of 2000, I felt quite the opposite; each candidate had certain key issues they chose to push over others, but both tended towards very ‘middle-of-the-road’ standpoints, and both seemed far too wishy-washy for my tastes. It is a wonder, looking back at Bush during election times, that the president we see before us is the same man- but I digress.

Though third party candidates offer clear alternatives to the ‘tweedledee and tweedledum’ politics of the two major parties, I find that more and more, I too despair when I think of voting. I don’t really feel an affinity with the Democrats on issues, I find many of their candidates to be wishy-washy, if not downright laughable (evidenced by the 2004 Flash movie), and yet I still feel helpless when I think of the next election. Why? Currently, I am torn between two different arguments. The first argument is Mr. Tripp’s, and it is unfortunately quite relevant. If you are going to vote in a presidential election, and you do not wish a Republican candidate elected president, voting for a third party candidate rather than the Democratic candidate is hurting the Democrat and helping the Republican. Unfortunate, but true. The second argument is more akin to my ideology: voting for a third party candidate helps to “uplift” that party, lending it more and more validity in the public eye and assisting the breakdown of the current two-party monopoly.

But, after three years of Bush’s presidency, I am leaning more and more towards voting Democratic in the next election, if only to insure that he and his cabinet members are not re-elected.

Until there is a major change in the way political system of America, I feel that many socially conscious people will be faced with the same dilemma and forced to choose between voting their conscience and voting Democratic in the next election. Let us hope that eventually we might find a way to establish a more democratic system that eliminates this dilemma altogether.

Naturally, Mr. Tripp wasn't going to let an e-mail like this slip by without a fight. He submitted two responses:

Francis,

I would like to respond to the recent posting from Neil Schlick. First let me say that Neil’s comments are full of rhetoric but extremely short of substance. Other than some not so clever name calling, he seems to make only one point. His point is that Al Gore and George Bush are identical and virtual clones. His point being that they are so identical that everything they do would be exactly the same no matter which is in office. Really Neil, this is an extremely simplistic view of the world. It is extremely rare if not impossible to find any two people who agree on everything and will always respond to every situation in exactly the same way.

In fact, Neil’s view seems to be that all Democrats and all Republicans are identical. Neil, do you ever watch CSPAN or listen to the debates, which often result in virtual name calling as well? Does this sound like two “identical” positions? Perhaps people with views on one far end of the political spectrum are so far removed from the debate that they are unable to distinguish the differences, but they exist. Do you think that Gore would have pushed through the tax cut that Bush just did? If so, I don’t think you have a clue as to what is really going on in the American political system. What little relief the lower income people got from the recent cuts were only forced on the Republicans after the Democrats embarrassed them into it. And the elimination of the estate tax has long been a goal of the Republicans that never would have had a chance if the Democrats controlled the presidency or the Congress. And do you think that either party appoints like minded individuals to the Supreme Court and to other judicial positions? If so, why do the Democrats (the party currently out of power) spend so much time and energy fighting many of these appointments? Why not just rubber stamp them?

A number of years ago I had a discussion with a friend of mine from Norway. He was describing his country’s political environment and he told me that they had two major parties – both with unpronounceable names to a non Norwegian so he described them as follows. The first party, he said, “you would call “socialists”. After a short pause he said, “the other party you would call ----- socialists”. His point being, that we would not see much difference between the two because they were both so far left compared to our parties that they would seem indistinguishable from each other. But to Norwegians who cared about their country, those differences were very real. I would submit that for American’s who actually care about what their country does, there are real differences between Republican and Democratic candidates, and between Democrats and Democrats and Republicans compared to Republicans.

Only those who like the sound of their own voice and who want to delude themselves into thinking they are better and smarter than the rest of the country fail to notice these differences. They are so busy espousing some “pure” vision, that they generally cannot even articulate, that they can’t or won’t take the time to try to understand the choices that actually exist in front of them.

There are a lot of problems with this country, and both political parties are flawed and make mistakes. Finding what is wrong with the world is easy. Finding real, workable ideas to make things better is the hard part. The easy way out is to throw stones at the whole system, say it is all screwed up and say that blowing up the whole thing (literally or figuratively) is the only way to make things “right”. Well frankly Neil, that is the bull shit fantasy of people who don’t have the intelligence or the courage to really try to make things better. They want to wish their way to a better world, dreaming of fantasies that will never occur and pretending, in their own little dream world, that they are better and purer than all the “fucktards” out there. Dream away Neil, while the rest of us “fucktards” really try to keep America out of stupid wars in the future.

Steve Tripp

Response #2:

Francis,

I just re- read the email I sent you last night. It is a little more strident and judgemental than I usually am. (I think I don't like being called stupid three times in one paragraph!)

In fact, I have great respect and admiration for people of deep conviction and principle. People who are willing to speak up about the things that are wrong in our society.

I have less patience with those who are so self righteous about it that they believe that they and they alone are "smart". Those who think that anyone with opposing views is stupid or evil. By failing to recognize that people with different views may be both smart and well meaning, we lose any opportunity for a dialogue with them.

This country has a long history of extremists living on the edge of society, without having any significant impact. When socialism and communism were making huge gains in Europe and around the world, they remained only fringe movements here. Wishing and hoping radical views will be accepted by others, or screaming radical slogans at the top of your voices will not convince an extremely pragmatic American public that there is ANY truth to your views. The voices of the extremists are dismissed quickly by the majority of Americans and the TRUTHS that these extremists do know are not heard. That is a real shame, that some of the best people in America, some of the purist of heart who recognize some things that America needs to change are not really involved in anything constructive. These voices are wasted when the speakers don't know how to communicate. And that is unfortunate for America and all the world.

So, Neil, I appreciate the intensity of your feelings toward the American political system, but I think you will be totally ineffective at having any real influence on that system as long as you consider yourself "better" and "smarter" than the rest of us.

Steve Tripp

Neil puts another word in:

Heyo Francis,

I present to you my response. I suppose I could just let this go and call it water under the bridge, but I felt the need to better explain myself, because in retrospect I find that my e-mail was indeed "full of rhetoric but extremely short of substance," as Mr. Tripp put it. One might note that I wrote you at a rather late hour and was quite tired, and so my e-mail was flitty at best, insulting and pig-headed at worst. I apologize, it was in poor taste. However, I think Mr. Tripp was acting in extremely bad form with his first response to my letter, and I was deeply offended. I understand he was rather enthusiastically enraged when he read my e-mail and so responded in a huff with his hair all tousled, deviating from his usual foppish demeanor.

With that out of the way, I would now like to explain to you and our little dandy Mr. Tripp my style of humor and the compulsiveness of my nature. I should explain that when I wrote, "It is not my intention to flame-mail him, simply to point out how stupid he is," in my original e-mail, the sentence started off with a rather different intent. I was trying to calm down the situation, ease the mood by apologizing for my prior insults. But, as I sat attempting to form the rest of the sentence which was to follow, "It is not my intention to flame-mail him," I had the idea to throw in yet another joke. I thought it funny, if rather mean, but I love a good joke and so kept it in the
e-mail. It was meant to be sarcastic (I don't really think you're stupid Stevie, I just don't like your politics), and so again I apologize for calling you stupid three times in one paragraph. Furthermore, in my defense, there is a distinct difference between stupid and stooooo-pid.

Enough of that rhetoric, on to the substance I say! I have decided not to provide any sort of counter-point to what said dandy wrote in his first response, because it would be unfair to pick apart a man at his worst. So we'll start from the top of the second one. I understand that I might have come off as thinking myself inherently superior to all those who disagree with me, but that's because its true. Kidding! Actually, that seems to be my biggest issue. I'm always kidding, and I will take what Mr. Tripp has said about my comments to heart. Despite all appearances, I do not actually think myself your better; it's just a style of humor I employ in order to cover up my own
personal insecurities about my significance as a human being. Call it a character flaw if you will.

I'm curious though, about the mention of "huge gains" for socialism and communism. Do you mean "rampant spread" of socialism and communism? Because yes, it did spread quite fast, but in insecure nations that were in terrible economic situations, like the satellite nations or the recovering East Germany, or immediately following a major overthrow of a tyrant (such as Russia or Cuba). Maybe I am not entirely grasping his point, but I do believe he is dismissing the Containment policy, the Marshall Plan, and various other programs that were all designed to halt the further spread of communism and socialism in the U.S. and other nations as Americans just being slow to jump on the Commie Train. The concept of incorporating communism in to the U.S. government strikes me as rather preposterous (though somehow it still seems to have
happened.) It seems weird that as our government battled the spread of communism, they
promoted redistribution of wealth through welfare and other tax programs. Not that I think welfare or social security is bad, I just think its funny that these men who were so phobic of communism were at the same time promoting a form of it. I think that subject is for an entirely different e-mail that will have to come some other time, for currently my only intention is to resolve
Mr. Tripp's quarrel with me.

Other than that there is little substance left to the letter which requires response, except that I should try to further stress my point that I do not really consider myself automatically better or smarter than you, and that I hope in the future you and I might trade ideas in a slightly more civil
manner. Thus, all that is left to respond to is the original comments Mr. Tripp made. I know I promised not to respond, but I realize there are still some issues that are unresolved if I do not respond to the key points in the original letter which are hiding behind all the invective language. So let me just say this: I do not think Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same, I do
not believe all humans who align themselves with the Republicans or Democrats are the same, I do watch debates as well as press conferences, and I think my voice sounds moronic and that I'm way too skinny (thus eliminating the possibility of me being a narcissist). So I suppose that's it, I'm sure I'll be writing in again soon.

Ever kidding,
Neil Schlick

Episode II: M.A.W.G. Strikes Back

Neil,

Sorry that I failed to understand your sense of humor. You may find this hard to believe but I am really a pretty funny guy at times! You are clearly much funnier (and probably better looking) than me, so I won’t try to compete with you in the humor department, although our exchange will probably become quite dull if at least one of us isn’t insulting the other or at least making some good jokes. So feel free to continue to have fun at my expense, insult me or whatever else is required to keep reader interest and to maintain your obviously low self esteem from dropping any further. For me, I will stay on the “high road” and not stoop to such low tactics! (I will even refrain from submitting those rather embarrassing pictures from some of your recent escapades and I will not mention your arrest record because that would be irrelevant-as would the reports from the humane society concerning your treatment of puppies and kittens…).

But, on to the substance. The point that I was making concerning the spread of communism and socialism was meant to emphasize the very “middle of the road” nature of American society throughout its history. I wasn’t referring to the forced spread, or attempted spread, of communism during the cold war. I was talking about the fact that in the late 19th century and early 20th century Communists and Socialist parties were very strong in much of Europe. A big part in the rise of the Nazis in Germany can be attributed to the fact that the major alternative to them was a growing Communist party in Germany. Italy and France also had very strong parties before and after World War II. These parties never had anything close to this type of support in a very pragmatic America.

I believe this avoidance of “extremes” is very central and core to the American psyche. It even begins with the founding of our country. The American Revolution was very different than the French Revolution which was only about a decade behind ours. Why is that? Well it is certainly a complex question that could probably be covered in about 10 Ph.D. theses, but I think a key reason was American “pragmatism” vs. French “idealism”. The leaders of the French revolution were much more “idealist” and “pure”, less willing to compromise. The French Revolution degenerated into the terror and ultimately Napoleon. Our constitution is full of compromise and checks and balances – and has worked for over 200 years. (Some of the compromises were not “good ones”. At this point I am not trying to defend our constitution or system as “perfect”. In fact that is exactly the point, we all know it isn’t perfect and so did the founding fathers.)

In the field of philosophy the Europeans have many great names (Kant, Hegel etc.). Further, many European, especially continental, philosophers developed complex systems, meant to explain everything in a highly structured, systematic manner. By far America’s most famous philosopher was William James whose philosophical “school” was of course “Pragmatism”.

There is a pattern here. French revolution – driven by extremists; American revolution – full of compromise. 19th and 20th century spread of an idealist doctrine (Communism) – strong in Europe; weak in America. Philosophical systems – German idealism; American Pragmatism.

My point is that there is a long, long history in America that says that extremist views (Communist, Libertarian, Anarchist or whatever) do not succeed or come close to succeeding. That is not to say that America does not change. If you look at our government and society today compared to 100 or 200 years ago, it is hugely different. But these changes are largely evolutionary, not revolutionary. And these changes were not achieved by people who remained outside the political/economic system, but by those we worked within the system.

So casting your ballot for third party candidates “wishing”, “hoping” and “dreaming” for a “new society” is just not going to be effective in this country. If you voted for Nader in the last election “hoping” and “dreaming” or “holding out for some idealistic extreme vision”; congratulations, you helped elect George Bush. Thanks for helping to shape our society in the direction it has taken the last few years.

"The Long and Winding Road..." continues...

Stevey,

How goes my man? I guess we’ve simply stopped addressing Francis, he has ceased to be anything more than a channel through which we can call each other names and make inferences to one another’s criminal pasts. I am not proud of what I did to those cats, but I can’t help but laugh when I think of the noises they made as they catapulted through the air. And in my defense, puppy punting is a common practice in some circles. I will not specify which circles these are at this time. Also, have you considered psychology as a field of practice? Perhaps you are one, because let me tell you, the way you analyzed my behavior and came to the conclusion that I have low self-esteem was positively astounding. Bravo Steve, bravo. Strange, because wasn’t it just a little while ago that I was a narcissist? Funny the way I change from one day to the next.

This correspondence is getting rather long winded and petty, so I will attempt to be brief. I understand your point now about American pragmatism vs. European idealism. I don’t have much to say to that, except that I believe that while the government has stayed brutally pragmatic, the American people have ceased to be, some opting to become idealists, others becoming self involved and unconcerned with the rest of the world. This is probably foolish of me to say, but just looking at the way Americans have felt about this war, I feel it to be a decent generalization (remember, it’s a generalization, and everyone knows that there are flaws with stereotypes, so bare with me.) The government clearly fought this war out of sheer pragmatism. They wanted oil, they wanted to jumpstart our economy, they wanted to get rid of a thorn in their side and replace it with a government that is highly supportive of the U.S. They attempted to appeal to the idealism of some by saying that Saddam was killing his people, and they flooded the news with horror stories of the evil things he and his regime did to their people. The government then attempted to sway those uninterested with the suffering of the Iraqi people by making it appear that Iraq was a serious threat to us, saying that there were WMD’s in Iraq and that they were trying to get Uranium from Africa. That’s just my take, and I suppose I am probably very wrong for any number of reasons, so feel free to rip it to shreds.

Lastly, my opinion on how to make get a third party into power is put to words in the reader mail titled Much Ado About the Greens. That mail is actually the result of a conversation I had with Ben about that very topic. He used it in order to have something to say. What he wrote is exactly how I feel on the topic, so check it out because I’m too lazy to write it myself. Until the ideas expressed in Ben’s mail can be attained, I will vote my conscience and not just what makes sense to you, as I am disgusted by the concept of simply picking the lesser of two evils. I did not help to elect Bush because I did not vote for him, and I did not take away votes from Gore because I didn’t want him in office either. I would assume this is the opinion of many who chose to vote for a third party. Of course, even by your logic I didn’t help to elect Bush because I’m only 16, so it would be hard for me to have voted. Luckily, by 2004 I’ll have the chance to “help elect Bush,” by not voting for the democrats then. I better get started “wishing,” “hoping,” and “dreaming,” for a “new society,” now, so I can get the jump on all those other people who want the same thing! By the way, who said wishing, hoping, and dreaming for a new society before you that you felt the need to put each word in quotes? Are you one of those people who does the two-fingers curling thing whenever they use a metaphor or say something they don’t really mean? That drives me nuts!

Have a “nice” day,

Neil Schlick

Back to Reader Mail