Politics and Culture

"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make [politics] your life."

-Jimmy Soul

There's something uncomfortable about being a member of the opposition party. One sometimes finds oneself cheering for failure. The best-intentioned reasoning goes like this: "When people realize that the current administration and it's policies are terrible, they'll be willing to elect my side. In order for that to happen, things have to get bad." The worst example of this is when those opposed to Bush eagerly awaited disaster in Iraq (don't deny it, Ms. Arianna "the surge sucks" Huffington). Republicans did it a little when the stock market was going down earlier this year. Obviously, if the opposition doesn't fail, one either has to live with cognitive dissonance (and we know how painful that can be) or change one's mind.

I'm pretty good about stopping myself (as if hoping really had an effect), realizing that failure means people getting hurt, but I don't like thinking that the success of my beliefs require the collapse of another's.

(I've developed a method for dealing with this that's a combination of Western scientific induction and Eastern detachment: I sit back and observe. If I'm right [I am], I need not do anything to hasten an outcome ["look, he's the man. Let's see how it works out"]- bad effects will follow bad policies as night follows day. If I'm wrong, then I adjust accordingly. I make an exception for those things where the damage done might not be readily apparent. People like Mark Steyn think that health care will mean the certain, but stealthy destruction of free enterprise. I care about some social issues because I think that they're a long-term disadvantage, but it's not exactly the most fun activity I can think of. Of course, there are those things that directly affect me.)

There's a mode of operations on some political shows and blogs that also rubs me the wrong way. As soon as the opposition gets into power, some see it as their duty to destroy them. Admittedly, it's difficult to assess how much is "too much" and some would argue that it's not beyond the bounds of decency, as they desire an end and wish to use tactics they consider effective- no doubt they're sincere and truthful in their opposition, and I appreciate Brietbart, Malkin, and Beck's good work against ACORN- doing so just makes me unhappy: I prefer to defend than attack and will mostly leave the pit-bull stuff in others' capable hands.

It's also the case that many of my friends and professional colleagues don't share my politics. Now, I don't hide it, but I'm sure it's off-putting to some, and if there's anything I hate it's putting people off. I also get the feeling that a lot of those who disagree with me will be getting very angry in the near future, with or without my help.

Oh, and I'm in the military and Obama is my commander.

As an added benefit, I'll have more time to log about other important things like music and sci-fi.

To summarize a rambling post:

1. I don't like to see my interests as separate from the current administration's, even if I think they're doing unintentional harm to the nation. I know, I know, but I can't do it all of the time.

2. I don't like to pick on people's every fault, even if some of them are funny, like addiction to teleprompters. You can't have a person impossible to mock in some way.

Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

3. I don't want to alienate co-workers any more than I already do with my poor social skills.