Monday, March 22, 2010

Why I did not vote for Obama.

Contrary to what you may think on reading this title, the majority of this post has nothing to do with arguing a political standpoint. It's not about platform issues or promise keeping. You see, there is a much more subtle reason behind my voting for NOT Obama. That reason is:

He seriously creeps me out. The for real jibblies.

I'm not kidding. I'm not trying to brag or anything, and be all like "I told you so", but I am honestly not surprised that he isn't keeping any of his campaign promises. I knew before the election even got into full swing that there was something not on the level with him. And it didn't have anything to do with his supposed political beliefs. No joke. Neither did it have anything to do with his political party, who he was running against, or the fact that he was black (well, in a manner of speaking. He's hardly looks black to me. Kind of a dark tan.)

See, I didn't know anything about him coming into the election, except that I vaguely remembered his name from a Chicago election four years earlier. And I don't even remember what that election was from. I just remember someone making a big deal over it, and me not caring. I'm terrible at keeping up with politics and platforms and everything. So it wasn't any of that.

All I know is that I randomly turned on the tv one day before the election, and some kind of campaign speech was on CNN. So I started watching a little bit of it. About five minutes into it, I got this really creepy feeling about him. I don't know exactly why, or what it was. I mean, it's not like he was saying anything weird. All I heard was "change, change, change" and I was just trying to figure out "change what?" just in an honest wanting to know what he stood for way. I don't think I even knew who he was running against yet, and I think I only knew he was the democrat candidate because of something about Hilary Clinton and primaries

So yeah, I don't remember anything from his speech, besides change over and over. I don't remember what his political stance was, or what promises he made. I just remember thinking that it would be a bad thing to vote for him. You probably think I'm retarded for voting based on that. It sort of sounds like those phone psychics that really don't know what they're talking about. And that's ok. Because you have the right to stand up for what you believe in, too. Free speech is for everyone, not just the people who believe the same as you do. All the same, though, that honestly was my main motivating factor. One speech was all it took, and I just had a persistent bad vibe from him. Every other time I ever saw him on tv, I remembered that creepiness factor, and just couldn't like him, even if he sounded really good.

Zoom forward in time to now. We've got this health care reform whatsit going on. Now, I'm not saying the systems in America don't need some improvement. And I'm not saying I even understand all the ramifications of whatever that thing is that just passed. I don't have the political intelligence to know what different things mean, and what exactly will happen because of it.

But I do know two things: One, the way they passed that bill was seriously fishy, and two when people come together across party lines to be mad together at congress, something is seriously wrong with whatever congress did.

As for that first one, I may not understand all about the inner workings of washington, but I've watched school house rock, and I know the basics of what is supposed to happen up there. I know that the way things are supposed to work is that we vote for people to go up to congress, and when they go there, they are supposed to vote for stuff based on how the people who elected them want. This cuts out a lot of hassle, because in a country with millions of citizens, you just can't have a full out vote every time you need to pass anything. Needless to say it hasn't really worked that way for a while, but it's apparently gotten a lot worse this time.

Because from what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the way this particular health bill passed is this:
There were lots of people in congress who wanted to pass the bill, but the people they represented didn't.
They needed to find a way to pass the bill without having to tell their constituents that they voted for it.
They came up with this plot to do so.
There was something else that was being voted on. To the end of this other thing, they attached a clause.
The clause basically said that as soon as this bill that it's attached to gets voted on and passed, the health care bill also gets passed by default.
They voted on this other bill with the attached clause.
When that bill got passed, the health care reform also got passed without being voted on.

Now, I don't know about you, but this seems like the epitome of dishonesty. It's basically like king George III coming back again, and telling us we don't need representation in congress, because they know what's best for us, and we shouldn't worry about it. It entirely defeats the purpose of having a representative government in the first place. And it's most definitely against the constitution.

I don't care if the health care is good or bad (which I get the impression it's bad, but we'll talk about that in a sec.) I don't care if the bill that clause was attached to is extremely interrelated to the health care bill. I don't care about all the little specifics of any of that. Because the point is that our government just passed a bill without voting on it, and without the support of the majority of the American people. Because, let's face it, if enough people wanted that bill to pass, they wouldn't have had to worry about their little scheme. They wouldn't have to worry about their precious little careers, because "oh, look at me, I didn't vote for the bill".

Guess what, there might be lots of really stupid people out there, but not as many of them as you think. People are going to notice that everyone is saying they didn't vote for the bill, and yet somehow the bill is passed and ready to go. 2 and 2 still equal 4 even if you try to convince us it's five.

Now, as for that second thing. There are two things in this world that can cause tempers to flare faster than anything else: politics and religion. Normally people of different political parties and views tend to butt heads about lots of stuff. I have friends on my facebook from four different parties (if you count independent as a party). I've seen a lot of differing opinions about stuff through my time on facebook just based on people's statuses.

So when I see every single facebook status that talks about this health care reform to be against it... literally, every one of them that talks about it at all... (many from people in the medical professions) there's gotta be something going on. When people from all different parties are mad about the same thing, and they cross party lines to unite against something, that's a sure sign that whatever it is they're mad about is a pretty bad thing.

Like I said before, I don't know all the ramifications of this health care bill. I don't know what it means for our money or spending, or national debt, or insurance, or being able to get care when I'm sick... I don't know. I know what lots of other people tell me it means, but I've had differing opinions on it, and I haven't had a really good, in depth discussion on it. So I can't honestly stand up and say it's good, or it's bad. I don't know. But because of this uprising against it, I'm not feeling too optimistic about it.

But that's still almost beside the point. I mean even if it was 100% a good thing for America (which I'm definitely sure it isn't, because nothing out of Washington is 100%) the fact is that the American people didn't support it.

"And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature. For what appearance would there be of any compact?" John Locke
Basically, when you join a society, you make a promise to abide by the laws that the majority of the people in the society determine. In giving up a few small freedoms to the will of the majority, you get in return protection from the chaos that anarchy would natural bring. But if you refuse to follow the will of the majority, the contract is null and void. There is no contract anymore.

This might be a smidge off the topic, but sometimes I think people forget this. They want to be as free as someone living completely alone in the middle of nowhere, where there is no government. IE to "do whatever they want". That's a phrase people use all the time. But you have to also remember that when you're in that state of complete freedom, so are other people. If someone comes in and steals your animals or your food, or your wife and kids, they're perfectly within their rights to do so. You have your right to defend yourself, but if you lose, sucks to be you. That's just how it is. Everyone has complete freedom.

That's why, according to Locke, people form governments in the first place. They give up a lot of control to the will of the majority, and in return the will of the majority can protect you from having your stuff vandalized, or your wife murdered, or whatever. It can punish the people that do those things, and do their best to make sure it doesn't happen. There are certain unalienable rights that no government should be allowed to take away, but generally, if you agree to be in that society, you agree to follow whatever the majority says.

But lots of people want both. They want to be protected by laws, and have other people restricted from doing anything that would hurt them, but at the same time they still want the right to do "whatever they want". That's counter-logical. You can't have a one sided contract. Like Locke says, there are some things that should never be taken away, and if they are, you have the right to break that contract, and change the society. But most stuff you can't complain about because that's just how things work. You agreed in your contract to be subject to the will of the majority.

Now, you can work to try to change that will. You can campaign, and inform, and do a lot of work to get people to realize why you think things should be a certain way and views do shift back and forth. But generally, you are bound by the will of the majority.

Coming back to the point, though, that's why this thing is really bad. Because a small minority of the people in the society are trying to get everyone else to be bound by a law that was NOT passed by the will of the majority. According to Locke, the founding fathers, and the constitution, this is a clear violation of the American contract. The really sad thing is, though, that while people may inherently have the right to fight back, sometimes it isn't possible. Sometimes the government gets too much control and too much force, and the millions of people have a choice to either be subject to the will of the few, or get painfully executed.

Luckily we aren't there yet. As much as it might seem otherwise, we are still very free. The fact that I'm talking about this online in a public blog and NOT getting arrested and tortured because of it means that there is plenty of hope left. But who knows where that will go.

Anyway, that's the scoop on me. Why I didn't vote for Obama, why I'm still glad I didn't, and why I feel sort of justified in partaking of a little "Haha, told you so". You can disagree if you like. And feel free to correct any facts I got wrong. But please don't start bashing each other, me, or anyone else over the comment box. Because I'm just gonna delete it if it turns retarded. Yelling at random people over a comment box never accomplished anything (although sometimes it is a cause for great amusement to more intelligent onlookers. :P )

No comments: