socio-political experiment

For the past week, via the Honesty Box application, I asked people who happened upon my facebook profile the following question:

 “Presidential election:  who is your candidate and why?”

I received a variety of answers.  Some were well written and thoughtful, others..not so much.  Here are a few of the more intersting ones.  copy-and-pasted verbatim.

I like John McCain because he has balls

Come Nov. I will cast my vote for Obama/Biden.  Why?  Their consistent emphasis on improving the (currently abysmal) diplomatic relations between America and the rest of the international community.

As Occom’s razor teaches us, the simplest solution is best.  In the case of foreign affairs, one should never exclude that most basic yet influential human communication: talking.”

dumbo can go fuck himself” (reference to Obama and his ears..)

McCain.  experience

NOT obama

McCain will keep America in a perpetual state of warfare/occupation.  McCain does not undstand economics/fiscal policy.   I will vote for Obama.”

McCain/Palin . when he dies and she becomes president we can finally have someone hot to put on our money

the vote, according to my honesty box responses, is 55% for McCain (if you include the comment “Sarah Palin is hot”  as an endorsement of McCain), 25% Obama, 13% neither/don’t care, and 6% Ron Paul (one answer for Mr Paul simply said “RON FUCKING PAUL“).

If I limit the “vote” to only Obama and McCain, the results are 30% Obama, 70% McCain.

McCain’s supporters’ comments were definitely more humorous.  But Obama’s were more thoughtful.  Anyway, I would still vote for Ron Paul if I could.

Also explore..


  1. I think that a few political cycles/generations from now we’ll see growing interest in Libertarianism. The intellectual base/rhetoric is already there and gaining momentum outside of college campuses as evidenced by Ron Paul’s bid. In the meantime, its just so damn frustrating to realize that there are irredeemably bad qualities about both parties, fiscally on the part of the Democrats, socially on the part of the Republicans. Then again, that statement is rooted in the belief that either party is actually capable of furthering their purported interests. Eight years of Bush, and what did he actually accomplish in terms of social policy? Under the Clinton administration (I wanted to say ‘the Clintons’ because of Hillary’s advocacy of universal health care), fiscally, the drastic changes that were sought never came to fruition (sorry for the double parentheses in the same sentence, but I guess I could argue that what appeared to be a small change with the sub-prime interest loaning process turned out to be a pretty damn big one). I mean, I’m happy that neither end was achieved, but regardless, the status quo is in a sort of gridlock for better or worse.

    Now that I have my cogs turning, I was playing devil’s advocate the other night, writing about possible repercussions to a Libertarian hegemony assuming that the pluralist infrastructure of our country was maintained. There is a power vacuum opposite of every interest group, and assuming that there was a Libertarian majority in the judicial, executive, and legislative branch, and going by the theory that the Stalinist incarnation of Communism would be the polar-opposite of Libertarianism, it seems as though it could hypothetically*** open doors to unforeseen consequences.

    As it stands, if our economy were fixed up a bit (euphemism), I think that our socio-political climate, although terribly annoying, is in pretty good shape. You’re never going to totally eliminate racial tensions, and I think that phobias of homosexuals is something that will be equally difficult to wipe out, but both of the two evils are definitely less common than they have been in the past.

    Jesus, so anyways, this is what happens when you let your kid read too many science fiction books. Thanks for being intelligent.

  2. Eloquently put, Dan. I agree that our society is in a relatively good shape. Especially in the context of history and other nations, we are in no place to complain. I do find it rather curious that people, who I assume have similar goals of human progress and social/economic development, can become so full of hate for their fellow man – who strives for those same goals – because he advocates achieving them by a different means. When people are hateful, rationality is left at the door. It is unfortunate. I also think a huge amount of our tension is due to the lack of clarity regarding what we actually want to achieve. Is it helping those we deem help-worthy? Preventing “bad” actions by those who would commit them? Feed the hungry, nurse the sick, cure disease, fix the economy, balance the budget.. the most important issues are subjective, and I think people tend to let those most important issues be determined by emotion, rather than reason.

    You are so right about the democrats’ lack of sound economic policy, and the republicans’ overly stringent views on what is socially proper (and therefore allowable). People worry so much about others, they meddle too much in affairs not their own. That’s really why I like libertarianism. The idea of negative rights makes so much sense to me – that I, being a rational person, have the Right to determine my own actions as long as I am not harming my fellow human. And it is an infringement upon that basic right for another man to prevent me from doing as I choose because he would not choose to act the same way.

    I am in no place to complain. I have luxuries that I take for granted every day – a nice home, a car, closet full of clothes, the internet.. it seems that once a person has the things he or she needs, and then moves along to the perpetual acquisition of what he or she wants, a road block pops up in that what people truly want isn’t something so easily defined. The political arena seems to stab for this “desire of the populace”, but, in my opinion, often makes hasty and unnecessary drama out of unsettling events (say, back in the 70’s banks weren’t lending to people in entire zip codes because they were classified as high risk – that led to automatic denial of anyone living within that area regardless of the individual. the gov reacts to this discrimination by mandating that banks lend to sub-prime borrowers so that “every american can have an equal chance to have a home” – by the late 90’s this gov’t mandated sub-prime lending market has boomed – by late 2008 the market has busted.. and vois la here we are). When the feds cook up solutions to society’s “most pressing problems”, one must contemplate, how pressing is this, really? How much do I understand this? Enough that I make demands of those who truly do?

    Laying blame on the government is not right. The public creates the government, or at least fuels it. Until our population is intelligent enough to demand rationality over emotionality, we will probably still have many of the same issues of today. But I am optimistic. I find people to be inherently good, and though we may not always act in the best way, we Try to. And people seem to strive for intelligence – perhaps it’s this immense information availability that has accompanied the internet – or perhaps it is me finding different people to talk with – but conversations are getting better and better. Look at the thought/introspection your comment just pulled out of me! It’s compounding. I love it!

  3. that is so telling. my personal favorite is “not obama”. it sucks to read all of this but i feel better knowing that most of these people are not informed. if you like a candidate state why.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *