We're all sheeple, when you come down to it [View All]

[jpgray]

I believe, as do others, that Dennis Kucinich is the candidate that best represents morality and common liberal values in this race. Some think the same for Dean, Clark, Edwards or any given candidate. What makes the difference between Republicans and Democrats is self interest versus collective interest, respectively. To me DK is the best on collective interest, because he has the bravery to look ahead and confront the looming problems which are so popular to ignore.

Our own defense spending is greater than the defense budgets of most major countries combined. We will be in deep trouble when the boomers hit our social security system for this reason. BOTH sides are ignoring this problem. The major Democrats construct a fantasy world where only four or five years into the future matters, where defense spending and social spending can magically remain the same without increasing taxes as the boomers crash headlong into one and the 'war on terror' into the other. The Republicans construct a more elaborate and comforting fantasy, with the ludicrous assertion that cutting taxes further will help balance the budget. The main difference here is that the Democrats don't want to starve social spending to death as the Republicans do, but they don't want to be seen as soft on defense or as tax hikers either. Therefore they exploit the nation's microsecond-long attention span (don't snicker, that means you and me), and plan for the short term, as though this problem will never materialize.

Kucinich is on a whole other wavelength. He ACKNOWLEDGES the fiscal problem on the horizon, and proposes the most sensible way of dealing with it--cut defense spending to help provide universal healthcare. Were he a major candidate, he would be widely ridiculed for this position, but since major media can afford to ignore him, they do. He would be ridiculed as a major candidate because this is one of our sleeping giants that no one is supposed to talk about. A monstrously bloated 'defense' budget is GOOD for EVERY major TV network, and most newspapers--sometimes directly as in the case of NBC (GE), sometimes more indirectly. You will not hear much about this issue, and you will certainly not hear anyone advocating massive defense cuts to pay for social welfare--it has been demonized beyond the point of discussion.

So what really exasperates me with candidacies like those of the 'major' candidates is their short term view. No one is recognizing the long terms problems and offering the realistic solutions. Sure, they will all give an answer if the question is asked, but it will be an answer on a false foundation. Just as 'major' Democrats proclaim they can "finish the job" in Iraq and yet at the same time eliminate the insufferable overextension of our forces, so too do they claim the ability to subsidize healthcare and fund education and social security all while keeping the defense budget at its current level. All this too while repealing only the high-bracket tax cut (Dean is still in the gray area on this one).

This is why when people puff up and say "the people are sheeple who vote for X on electability!", I get confused. For unless one supports Kucinich, one has to wilfully ignore the major fiscal issue of our time, or believe a fantastical solution that somehow balances the budget in the face of spiraling need by changing almost nothing. Truly, in this case the mystical budget elves both parties apparently employ would be working overtime.

But guess what? Nowhere near a majority of DUers support Kucinich. The difference between the 'major' candidates is marginal at best. Whether it be trade between Edwards and Kerry, or the Iraq war stances between all the 'major' candidates. But this is indeed the primary focus of DU's bickering and wrangling, because like the media, we either are in ignorance of the big issues because we are enamored of the 'major' candidates, or we are enamored of the 'major' candidates because we ignore the big issues.

Out of the 'major' guys, I like Kerry because he is demonstrably the most liberal (voting record trumps words for me). But I recognize that many of his solutions, as with the other candidates, require suspension of disbelief, and a willful ignorance of the paradox and hypocrisy that are our fiscal and foreign policies.

So yes, mark me "sheeple", because I will vote for the nominee in the GE. But I will vote for Dennis in my caucus.

edit: Some clarity fixes. Hope someone reads the whole thing. :D