I just found this site which has quite a good summary on where the various candidates stand on the assorted issues, with quotes from the candidates and reference to their voting record. It's quite an interesting read.
Assume you have to choose between two political candidates, who for the sake of argument and entertainment we will call Susan Saintly and Barry Bastard. It will come as no surprise to connoisseurs of alliterating adjective names that Susan Saintly is pretty saintly, and that Barry Bastard is, when all is said and done, a bastard.
Susan Saintly's political philosophies are exactly in tune with your own. She cares about the issues that concern you, and her vision of a perfect future society is just like yours, only better. That's how good she is.
On the other hand, you can't see how anyone could possibly consider Barry Bastard as a viable choice of candidate. He's an ignorant moron with the social conscience of a mildly retarded crocodile. He wants to bring about a society which could only be worsened by adopting institutionalised child cannibalism, and even then it wouldn't be worsened by much.
Never has there been an easier tick to stick on a ballot paper, you might think, but here's the problem: Susan Saintly holds a 2:2 in Media Studies, and Barry Bastard has a background in intellectual property law. They don't know the first thing about implementing social or fiscal policy. They may have very well-developed ideas about where they want to go, but they have no clue about how to get there. Worse still, they don't know it.
You, an informed and educated individual, have a look through their respective manifestos and the proposed policies they plan to introduce. It takes you a while, but you eventually come to a disturbing conclusion: the policies of each candidate actually promote the social objectives of the other. On the surface, Susan Saintly's proposals to revitalise the education system seem sensible, but will unequivocally lead to widespread illiteracy amongst ethnic minorities. Meanwhile, Barry Bastard's plan to set all hospitals on fire will in fact lead to all NHS patients getting a better quality of service, with lower waiting times and greater access to prohibitively expensive medications. Assuming they implement their policies as they say they will, of course. Your experience with politics does not suggest this will necessarily be the case.
So, who do you vote for? Saintly Susan and her benevolent thickening of our kids, or Barry 'Baby-eater' Bastard and his accidental revolutionising of medical care?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
warning- might be triggery
Date: 2008-09-11 03:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-11 03:36 pm (UTC)Assume you have to choose between two political candidates, who for the sake of argument and entertainment we will call Susan Saintly and Barry Bastard. It will come as no surprise to connoisseurs of alliterating adjective names that Susan Saintly is pretty saintly, and that Barry Bastard is, when all is said and done, a bastard.
Susan Saintly's political philosophies are exactly in tune with your own. She cares about the issues that concern you, and her vision of a perfect future society is just like yours, only better. That's how good she is.
On the other hand, you can't see how anyone could possibly consider Barry Bastard as a viable choice of candidate. He's an ignorant moron with the social conscience of a mildly retarded crocodile. He wants to bring about a society which could only be worsened by adopting institutionalised child cannibalism, and even then it wouldn't be worsened by much.
Never has there been an easier tick to stick on a ballot paper, you might think, but here's the problem: Susan Saintly holds a 2:2 in Media Studies, and Barry Bastard has a background in intellectual property law. They don't know the first thing about implementing social or fiscal policy. They may have very well-developed ideas about where they want to go, but they have no clue about how to get there. Worse still, they don't know it.
You, an informed and educated individual, have a look through their respective manifestos and the proposed policies they plan to introduce. It takes you a while, but you eventually come to a disturbing conclusion: the policies of each candidate actually promote the social objectives of the other. On the surface, Susan Saintly's proposals to revitalise the education system seem sensible, but will unequivocally lead to widespread illiteracy amongst ethnic minorities. Meanwhile, Barry Bastard's plan to set all hospitals on fire will in fact lead to all NHS patients getting a better quality of service, with lower waiting times and greater access to prohibitively expensive medications. Assuming they implement their policies as they say they will, of course. Your experience with politics does not suggest this will necessarily be the case.
So, who do you vote for? Saintly Susan and her benevolent thickening of our kids, or Barry 'Baby-eater' Bastard and his accidental revolutionising of medical care?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-11 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-11 09:11 pm (UTC)McCain votes the Republican line 90% of the time in the Senate.
Obama votes the Democrat line 97% of the time in the Senate.
Change you can believe in. :)