In the most important issue of this and all elections in the next decade or so, the war with Islamic terrorists, the Republicans are not acting in the interest of the United States. I have come to the conclusion that "at least the Republicans will do something" is not a reason to vote for them. While I approve of Islamic terrorists being killed, in Iraq or elsewhere, the death of a few terrorist peons in a nation whose mechanism for state funding of terrorism has been removed does not serve to protect the United States from terrorists. The dwelling on the establishment of a "Democratic Iraq" plus the failure to properly address the source and primary threat of Islamic terrorism (Iran) is proof of the Republicans' incompetence.
On nearly every other (lesser) issue, Republicans are wrong. In fact, they're even more wrong than the Democrats, which is achievement worth bragging about to their Democrat buddies. Even though I've vowed not to torture myself over for whom to vote when both parties or candidates are nearly equally terrible, I succumbed to the temptation to self-torture again.
The question for me has been: do I vote Republican in hopes that they'll "do something" against terrorists, or does my vote not matter, since the Democrats won't do anything either? Or, do I vote Democratic to "punish" the Republicans and to stave off the seepage of religion into government? I have heard arguments in favor of voting Democratic for the purpose of what I consider performing a massive social mind-fuck with the American voting public. The goal is eventually to induce an uproar against a lack of Democratic action against the Islamic terrorist threat, thereby impelling the Democrats to do the right thing. This argument was said best by Craig Biddle:
"…if the Democrats gain control, whatever they do (or don't do) to defend America will properly be seen as too little; thus, they will constantly be encouraged to do more."
I bought a similar argument in favor of voting for Bill Clinton. However, I will no longer take the George Costanza "do the opposite" position and hope for the best. (Even though The Opposite was one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes.)
It amounts to a psychological game to manipulate the population into doing the right thing. First, I do not want to make that gamble. Second, we do not have four to six years to sustain terrorist attacks before people miraculously see the darkness (emitted by the Democrats).
Here's the problem: a vote for the Democrats will not necessarily be seen as punishment against the Republicans for not doing enough against Islamic terrorism. Why should it be? A vote for someone means that someone has some positive attribute lacking by the alternative. Yes, the Democrats generally lack a (principled) defense of religion. That's a good thing, and if we live to tell about it in ten years, a religion-infused US federal government will be a bad thing. But (a) Democrats are and will latch onto religion if it means gaining a vote, and (b) I'm not in favor of electing a nonreligious party whose only virtue is that they won't provide their slaves with a free copy of the Bible.
The way to truly send a message is to actively abstain from voting. By "actively", I mean to go to the polls and enter "abstain" on the ballot. (I considered a vote for "Fuck You", but have realized that if anyone actually sees that particular write-in candidate, they may not take it seriously, even though it would be.) If everyone went to the polls and wrote in "abstained", it sure as hell would send the right message.
You may say that abstaining does not solve the dilemma of protecting the country in the short term. Unfortunately, the short term dictated to us has been extended by two years. Until we have a new president, we have no hope of changing foreign policy. I will send my message now and hope a reasonable alternative exists in the next Presidential election. Therefore, if you happen to walk past a forest and hear the sound of one hand clapping, that will be me.
