Well, it happened again. I said I would have the Grand Theory of Leftism posted before I went back to school. I'm going back to school in a few hours, and I haven't posted it yet...
So I'd better do that now!
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...
CD'S GRAND THEORY OF LEFTISM
A few general notes:
- This is based on my observation of liberal behavior over the past few months, both on the Internet and in the real world (when you're a communications major, you meet quite a few liberals).
- Remember that the GTOL is a theory, and is simply my attempt to explain how people come to believe certain things, and why they maintain those beliefs. It is not meant to be taken as definitive proof of anything.
- This does not apply to all liberals or leftists. It mainly applies to crazy moonbats who live in their own little world.
- I'm writing this in a hurry based on a text document that's been on my computer for about 4 months, so it'll probably be updated. A lot. For about a week.
- This is probably the last substantial post I'll write for a while. I'm going to be working my ass off until the end of the semester, and blogging will have to be sacrificed for the sake of my GPA.
On to the theory itself...
After observing liberals for a long time, I have discovered that their beliefs and attitudes seem to center around 3 things:
1. Projection (the psychological defense mechanism, not the movie thing)
2. Mental immaturity
3. "Selfish selflessness"
Let's cover projection first. Projection is, essentially, the attribution of one's own traits, beliefs, and behaviors to others. It can be used with both positive and negative characteristics. For example, liberals seemed to be ashamed of their liberalism during the 2004 election. When Kerry was called a liberal, he denied it. Others reacted similarly. However, they knew that they were liberal, and in order to eliminate the cognitive dissonance that occurred as a result of holding beliefs that caused feelings of shame, they had to choose between changing their beliefs or denying them.
Many chose to deny their liberalism, but to make themselves feel better about it, they latched onto the "liberal is an insult" excuse. Remember that? Lefties kept asking why "liberal" was always treated as a bad word. In reality, it seemed like they were just ashamed to be called liberal, but they projected those feelings onto their opponents in order to justify hiding their liberalism. See what I mean?
It was a similar situation with patriotism. Liberals kept claiming that their patriotism was being questioned, but other than Michael "The Insurgents Will Win" Moore, I don't recall much of that actually happening. Projection seems to explain it, however. You see, they apparently doubted their own patriotism, but since they didn't want to admit it, they said that the right had accused them of being unpatriotic, then used that as an excuse to bloviate about how they were more patriotic than Bush. They projected their shame about their beliefs onto their opponents, and it almost worked. Almost.
I'll cover more of that in the specific examples below. First, let's talk about mental immaturity. I'm not trying to be overly insulting here, but liberals seem to use thought processes that resemble those of less developed human beings. For example, their positions are often based on feelings rather than logic, and they have a tendency to think they can wish for the results they want without having to actually work for them.
An interesting fact I learned in my introductory psychology class is that children under a certain age have trouble seeing things from any point of view other than their own. For example, if they look at a sequence of pictures that depict a boy placing an object in a hiding place, followed by his mother moving that object after he leaves, they predict that the boy will look for the object in the location his mother moved it to, rather than the one in which he hid it. They don't understand that they can have information others don't, so they assume that everyone thinks exactly as they do.
See any parallels? Liberals often treat their opinions as facts, and opposing opinions as lies. This is why they seem to think that reciting talking points and/or cutting and pasting a long-winded editorial is equivalent to refuting someone's point. Since opinions count as facts, they see no need to explain why those particular opinions prove their point. In addition, if you disagree with them, you must be lying. Therefore, your opinion is often considered "hateful."
For a recent example, look at the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert scandal. The general understanding on the left seems to be that the White House hired him to ask softball questions to President Bush. Is there any proof of this? Not really. But since Gannon doesn't agree with them, he must be a professional stooge. After all, how could a member of the unbiased media ask slanted questions?
Speaking of the media, this immaturity thing applies there as well. Even after Rathergate, liberals still seem to think that the media is either unbiased or slanted to the right. This is because the media agrees with them, and since their opinions are The Truth, the media is simply reporting the facts when they portray Iraq and the economy as dismal failures and treat Bush like a draft-dodger. And Fox News gets the worst treatment. They slant a little to the right, so clearly, they're the government propaganda wing. In addition, people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are referred to as "Republican operatives" by some of the more loony leftists. Why? Because Republicans are liars for not agreeing with the left, and anyone who gets paid to argue for the conservative side must be associated with Bush or Rove somehow!
I've found a lot more proof that immaturity is a cause of leftist beliefs. For example, liberals tend to reduce complicated issues to simple, one-word descriptions. This often results in insults. If you're against affirmative action, you're a racist! If you're against gay marriage, you're a homophobe! If you're against abortion, you're a misogynist! If you support the war, you're an imperialist! If you support Bush, you're a fascist!
And remember, they see these little reductions as statements of fact.
The same applies to their own beliefs. They oppose the war because war is always wrong, and peace is always good. They support abortion because of the woman's "right to choose." They support gay marriage because it's the only way to achieve equality. Same thing with affirmative action. And they oppose Bush because...he's Bush!
Also...conspiracy theories. I don't think I have to add anything more to that one.
Liberals also seem to be able to change their positions at will in order to stay on the "right" (in this case, left) side. A few examples:
-"The war was for profit...and it's bankrupting the country!"
-"Iraq didn't have WMD...but even if they did, it was only because the U.S. sold them WMD!"
-"Kerry served in Vietnam, so questioning his patriotism is wrong. Those Swift Boat Vets are so unpatriotic."
-"Bush is crushing dissent and trampling our freedom of speech...and why won't he order the Swift Boat Vets to shut up?"
-"Bush didn't do enough to prevent 9/11...and the PATRIOT Act is excessive!"
-"Republicans are always trying to appeal to homophobes and racists. By the way, Jeff Gannon is a man-whore, and Condi Rice is a house negro." (that one was also projection)
- "Bush relies on scare tactics...so don't vote for him, because he will draft you and your children."
Immaturity also makes it difficult for liberals to see more than one goal at once. For example, they can't seem to figure out that the war in Iraq was fought to eliminate WMD and free the Iraqi people. It's got to be one or the other! The same thing applies to the "Saddam didn't attack us" crowd. Bin Laden and al Qaeda must be our only enemies, and if we go after someone like Hussein, it's a diversion from the real War on Terror!
The result of all this is moral and intellectual superiority. Conservatives are "evil" and "stupid," and liberals are the enlightened "reality-based community." See any of Howard Dean's recent comments for more on this.
I could go on, but I'll move on to the final point: "Selfish selflessness." Liberals like to be seen as the advocates of the unfortunate. The supporters of the "little guy." But the key part of this is that they "like to be seen" that way. This applies mostly to leftists in power. They support a larger government role in people's lives because they want to take credit for anything positive that happens. If anything negative happens...well, see the "projection" section. This also explains their fear of individualism. After all, if people help themselves, who will get credit for it? The result: Things like affirmative action and welfare. They may not solve many problems, but it kinda looks like they're helping, and they have "good intentions," so why not?
Some of this may also be caused by moral and intellectual superiority, by the way. The "sheeple" don't know as much as the elite, so clearly, they need government to make decisions for them. Either way, the left gets to take credit.
Now, it's time to look at a few cases where all these principles apply.
CASE #1: RACISM/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The liberal thinks about the situation and notices that he holds racist beliefs. This may not always be true, but I've noticed that the supposedly "tolerant" lefties tend to be much more familiar with racist terminology than conservatives. Look at all those "code words" they're always pointing to. Or read this. And this.
Anyway, the liberal observes his racist beliefs, and due to projection and mental immaturity, he assumes that most members of society hold those beliefs. However, he also realizes that he needs to look like he represents tolerance and racial equality. Cognitive dissonance forces him to make a choice between changing his beliefs or denying them. He chooses to deny them and support affirmative action, which makes it look like he cares when he is, in fact, perpetuating racism whether he realizes it or not. He can then project his racism onto conservatives when they claim that affirmative action is wrong.
This is fun, isn't it?
CASE #2: TERRORISM AND THE WAR
The liberal tries to understand terrorism by thinking about what would make him resort to terror. After all, everyone else must think the same way he does. He concludes that terrorists must be motivated by a lack of resources, and that by refusing their demands, we're increasing the probability of a terrorist attack. He doesn't really consider the fact that many terrorists are religious fanatics, since he would never commit a terrorist act in the name of religion. He then tries to devise solutions to terrorism based on his own experiences, and he concludes that we need to understand "root causes" and try to figure out how to work with the terrorists to help them out of their unfortunate situation. He also believes that we need to apologize for offending them, since that would make him feel better if he was mad at someone. He can even project his racism onto others in this situation by claiming that they want to "murder brown people" instead of trying diplomacy.
This applies to the war as well. Look at the "occupiers vs. liberators" argument. Liberals see U.S. troops as occupiers, and since occupying another country is clearly bad, the U.S. troops must also be bad. Based on these assumptions, liberals conclude that the Iraqis who identify U.S. troops as occupiers rather than liberators must not like having the U.S. in Iraq. They never stop to think that, even though the troops are occupying the country, it may be a good thing. No, if they're seen as "occupiers," they must be offending the Iraqi populace! Never mind the fact that there's nothing to liberate Iraqis from now that they have a representative government. If our troops aren't seen as liberators, the war is a quaaaaaaaaaagmiiiiiiire! For more proof, track down those pictures of people apologizing to Iraq for the war. Because, you know, all Iraqis would rather have Saddam back. Yep.
And how 'bout those anti-war protests? Perfect illustrations of the GTOL. Hundreds of people spouting random buzzwords and talking points in order to gain publicity for themselves and congratulate one another for not believing Bush's "lies." Have you seen how happy these protesters look? They don't seem to be doing it for anyone but themselves.
Hey, we can go even further with this. Liberals like to talk about how Bush has made us more unpopular in the world, and things like this show that they assume a consensus. First of all, placing more importance on popularity than principle is a big sign of immaturity. Second, why do they seem so sure that everyone in the world hates Bush? Why, because they hate him, of course! Sorryeverybody.com also demonstrates their need to look like they care. Selfish selflessness.
CASE #3: CRIME/THE DEATH PENALTY
This should be fun. Liberals seem to enjoy defending criminals, especially those sentenced to death. Why? Let's try to analyze the situation. The liberal observes a convicted criminal's plight, and a combination of projection and immaturity forces him to imagine himself in the same situation, rather than looking at it from a third-person perspective. He concludes that he would not enjoy being executed, and therefore, it's wrong to execute convicted murderers. As a result, his arguments against the death penalty often revolve around questions like, "How would you feel if you were sentenced to death?"
Well, I wouldn't like it one bit, but if I fucking murdered somebody, I would deserve it, right?
And yes, I have heard arguments like that. I also seem to remember hearing something like, "What if your mother was going to be executed? Would you support the death penalty then?"
Again, because the liberal can only see the situation from his point of view, he can't imagine why the death penalty would be necessary. After all...it wouldn't be fun! In order to deal with it, liberals can stand up for convicted criminals ("Free Mumia!") to get their feeling of self-satisfaction. Unwarranted empathy is a big part of this as well.
CASE #4: GUN CONTROL
Notice that many of the anti-gun arguments on the left revolve around the premise that "people don't need guns" or "I don't understand why you want to own a gun" or "I could never have a gun in my house." They assume that most people think like they do, and those who don't are just bloodthirsty, gun-crazy rednecks. Liberals don't seem to understand that many people do feel like they need guns, because they project their own anti-gun opinions onto society. In addition, they don't seem to understand the concept that criminals will still get guns and use them. They can't see themselves breaking the law, so clearly, nobody else would, right? And in any case...guns are violent, and violence is wrong, so we need gun control!
...
I need to develop that one, but it's a start.
That's all for now, but there will be updates in the next few days. The theory is all there; It's just a matter of posting more examples now. Feel free to add your own thoughts in the comments.
...Aaaaadd theeeeem...
/Homer
I mentioned in a post a couple months ago that I would take liberals more seriously if they would stick to criticizing conservatives for things they've actually done. I think I need to clarify that, because there have been a lot of examples lately. This is probably going to fit into the "Grand Theory of Leftism" that I'll have posted before I go back to school, but I felt like it deserved its own post as well.
You see, leftists have a tendency to attack their opponents for things that have never happened. Look at the pre-election draft rumors, for example:
LIBERAL: Don't vote for Bush! He wants to draft you and your children!
CONSERVATIVE: Um...didn't Bush say he opposes the draft?
LIBERAL: ... ... ... ... ... Don't vote for Bush! He wants to draft you and your children!
It's weird how they're able to do this. They make up a reason to criticize the right, and then they attack them relentlessly for doing something they haven't done. It's like the Salem witch trials. People were accused of being witches because they had supposedly danced with the devil in the pale moonlight... or something like that...then they were tortured until they confessed to doing it, even though they had never actually done it. Weird.
What's more, these accusations always seem to fit the liberal stereotype of the right. For example, a lot of lefties call President Bush a racist. He may have appointed a Hispanic attorney general and not one, but two African-American secretaries of state, but...he's still a racist!!!11!!1! And when you try to call them on it, they can't seem to deviate from the talking points:
LIBERAL: Bush is a racist!
CONSERVATIVE: How do you explain Condi Rice and Colin Powell?
LIBERAL: They're not really black. Bush wouldn't appoint black people to positions of power, because he's a racist!
It goes deeper than that, however. It seems like there's always a new reason for them to attack the right, and they stick to it as much as possible. How do they do it? Sometimes, it really seems like they plan ahead. Let's look at the draft again. It was proposed by Charles Rangel, a Democrat. However, as soon as it became an issue, liberals began accusing Bush of wanting to bring back the draft. I even saw one blog claim that the entire thing was done to prove to Bush how unpopular a draft would be, despite the fact that its supporters claimed it was a way to make the armed forces more representative of the population. Of course, the unpopularity angle seemed just as good after Rangel voted against his own bill, but on the other hand, the only two Congressmen who voted for the draft were Democrats. You wouldn't know that from listening to the left, but it's true.
For an even better example, look at how often liberals try to prove their patriotism. Why do they do this? Apparently, it's because us conservatives are fond of questioning liberals' dedication to this country. During the election, Kerry and his ilk constantly accused Bush of questioning his patriotism, and then all the good little lefty sycophants set out to prove that it is, in fact, more patriotic to oppose Bush than to support him.
There's only one problem: BUSH NEVER QUESTIONED ANYONE'S PATRIOTISM. Liberals questioned their own patriotism, then tried to prove that they were patriotic. However, this created the impression in a lot of people's minds that Bush and conservatives had, in fact, called the left unpatriotic. Bizarre.
And who always seems to be there advancing the latest leftist lies? You guessed it: THE MEDIA. A lot of times, they're the ones who set the agenda. For example, a lof of liberals have taken it upon themselves to prove that "red states" are full of hicks who only care about "moral values." Well, who ever said that they voted on values in the first place? I seem to remember that it was the media, almost immediately after the election, trying to prove that Bush only won because of anachronistic religious folk.
It's also interesting how quickly liberal arguments change based on this. As soon as the election was over, the left set out on a quest to prove that conservatives are dumb rednecks, and they changed the talking points accordingly. For example, during a discussion of the election, my extremely liberal TRF professor, in an attempt to sound fair and balanced, said something like, "liberals have always had an intellectual superiority, while conservatives have always had a moral superiority."
WHAT? If I'm remembering correctly, it's always been the other way around. Conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil, right? When did they switch around? Why, when the media said they did, of course!
I could write a lot more, but I think I'll end with one more example, which is one of the newest and most effective demonstrations of this principle. I'm talking about the attacks on Rumsfeld. It really does seem like the whole thing was orchestrated. Think about it. It started out with a reporter giving a question to a soldier. A question that was based on false information. Then, the soldier asked Rumsfeld the question, and although he gave a very detailed answer, the media only focused on that "you go to war with the army you have" quote, making it seem like he doesn't care about the troops. The liberal side of the political spectrum is now calling for Rumsfeld's resignation once again. All because of something he never did.
I don't think we'll ever figure out why the left does this, but knowing it's happening is the first step in preventing it. Thank you.
UPDATE
Oh, and Rathergate. That was another example.
Okay, I'm still open to requests, but I did come up with something to write about, which I will do...now.
Lately, people on both the left and right side of the political spectrum have been carping about "legislating morality." It's not a new complaint by any means, but ever since the "Jesusland" meme became trendy, it's gained a new life and new supporters, including a few right-leaning individuals who really should know better. I won't name anyone, but they're out there.
According to these people, government should never, ever legislate morality. Moral issues should be private business, not public policy. It sounds good at first, especially to "separation of church and state" proponents, but it's horribly, horribly wrong. I've mentioned before that I basically learned how to think critically from Greg Koukl, so the following rant will undoubtedly show that influence (he's even talked about this issue more than once), but I want to apply it to current events. Join me in the extended entry, and I'll tell you more...
First of all, we have to figure out exactly what "morality" is supposed to mean. Then, we can determine what should and should not be legislated. Let's look at a definition from Dictionary.com:
mo·ral·i·ty
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Basically, "morality" refers to what people consider right and/or wrong. However, the people who think government shouldn't legislate "morality" seem to be a bit confused about that. They view morality in the same way that many view faith: Belief in something that cannot be proved, disproved, or truly argued for. I disagree with defining both terms that way, but I'll focus on morality here to avoid going off on a religious tangent. That's for another day.
You see, if morality refers to a system of right and wrong, and government shouldn't legislate morality, then government is pretty much incapable of doing anything. Think about it. Are things like rape, theft, murder, fraud, terrorism, etc. not moral issues? That's ludicrous. We have laws against those things because common morality says that they're wrong. They weren't just arbitrarily chosen as Bad Things; they were identified as bad because they are.
You see, any time you decide that something is wrong or right, you're making a moral choice. I'm not talking about picking a shirt for the day or deciding what to have for dinner; I'm talking about decisions that involve values. Right, wrong, good, and bad are moral terms. People often differ on what's moral and immoral, but most of the time, legislation is based on morality. Rape is illegal because it's bad. Murder is illegal because it's bad. And this is based on moral reasoning, not some legal roulette wheel that the Founding Fathers brought with them.
Now that I've established that, let's see where people go wrong in telling politicians not to legislate morality. I'll use examples from the left here, although the right (or whatever libertarians and their ilk like to be called) often uses the meme as well.
Issue #1: Abortion
Those of us who are pro-life think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases because it causes the intentional death of an innocent human being, making it immoral and wrong. Pro-choicers, in response, sometimes claim that we shouldn't "legislate morality" by trying to outlaw abortion. As someone who supports the "most, but not all" side of the anti-abortion camp, I realize that there's some ambiguity in how much morality should be involved, but you can't deny that it is, in fact, a moral choice whether or not abortion is allowed.
If you think it's wrong to outlaw abortions, and you make legal abortion public policy, then guess what? YOU JUST LEGISLATED YOUR OWN MORALITY. And I'm sure if you could ask the millions of children who die every year from abortion, they'd agree that your morality was forced on them.
People seem to forget that morality consists of beliefs about what people shouldn't do, and beliefs about what they should do or should be allowed to do.
Issue #2: Same-sex marriage
I can already hear the moonbats frothing about this one. So, you think that there should be "equal marriage rights," and only homophobic religious fanatics could be against it? Well, if you legalize same-sex marriage, you have once again LEGISLATED MORALITY. Some people think it's wrong, and some people don't. No matter who wins, you've got yourself a moral decision there, partner (pun intended).
Issue #3: War
Specifically, the war in Iraq. Every good liberal knows that the Iraq war was wrong, and they want us to leave. That's interesting, because if we leave on the basis of it being the wrong decision, then we will yet again be LEGISLATING MORALITY. Any response to terror, other threats, etc. is a moral choice. If you think diplomacy and sanctions should've continued, then that's what you think is moral in the situation, and if we go that route, we're legislating it. Isn't this fascinating?
Issue #4: The environment
Now we'll really have some fun. Many lefties like to whine about how the evil Bushchimperor is destroying the environment by allowing big corporations to pollute it...or some tree-huggin' hippy crap like that. Anyway, they think there should be more environmental regulations to stop this. But wait! Wouldn't that be FORCING YOUR MORALITY on those who pollute the environment? What right do you have to tell them that what they're doing is wrong, you envirofascists?!
See what I'm getting at? No matter where you look, government is legislating someone's morality. Even on issues like tax cuts, people choose their side based on what they think is better for society. You can't have good, bad, right, and wrong without morality, because without morals, those words would have no meaning. Since they're based on some sort of reasoning, and not a random designation, they have substance and should be treated as arguments, not articles of faith that must be relegated to private life and never mentioned. Heck, even elections are moral choices; people vote for the candidate they think would be better for the country.
Just remember: Next time someone tells you that government shouldn't legislate morality, ask them if they thought the war was wrong. You get bonus points if they say "there is no truth" and then pass out from an overload of cognitive dissonance when you respond with "is that true?"
Heh heh.
Okay, so I'm clicking around the blogosphere, trying to get caught up on all the stories I missed while I was drumming the Orange[men] to victory yesterday, and I'm seeing a trend: A lot of right-wing bloggers seem to be giving up the fight all of a sudden.
I don't feel like providing specific links, but if you've been reading blogs lately, you know what I mean. Some polls are showing Kerry back in the lead, he supposedly "won" the debate, and confidence in Bush is down. Apparently, some bloggers see this as a reason to doubt Bush's ability to win the election. I tend to agree in some respects, but let's break it down.
First, the polls. They're showing Kerry in the lead, fulfilling the Democrats' need for a "comeback." But think about it for a second. The media are obviously biased toward Senator F**k Up. Their pre-determined narrative calls for a late comeback and subsequent victory. Is anyone surprised that he's now in the lead? Remember the CBS document fiasco? The coining of "fake but accurate?" What if the media are purposely skewing their polls in favor of Kerry, but justifying it by telling themselves that, since he won the debate, voters now favor him over Bush? Doesn't this make anyone else a little suspicious?
Also, I question the ability of these polls to predict the outcome of the election. They supposedly polled "undecided debate viewers" for some of them, but how many people actually watch the debates? I did, but I already know I'm voting for Bush. The votes are probably influenced more by post-debate spin than anything else. That's where the media come in. They're making sure people know that Kerry "won," and that he's seen as "more presidential" than Bush. Unfortunately, image matters a lot, so that isn't good news for Bush supporters.
HOWEVER, this is the 21st century. We've got ways of getting information out there without relying on the Old Media for assistance. I'm doing it right now by typing this blog post. We, the people, need to shift the focus from image back to facts. And on facts, Bush clearly won the debate. Kerry contradicted himself multiple times, he shot himself in the foot with his moronic "global test" rhetoric, and he still hasn't explained how he's going to get his so-called "allies" on our side. Think about it. If they're our allies, why aren't they with us now? Why is he insulting our true allies by calling them a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed?" The man is an idiot.
Speaking of facts, there are some good ones coming out today. A visit to Blogs for Bush will get you started. First, there's the revelation that Kerry may have violated debate rules by bringing notes with him to the podium. In addition, Kerry's brilliant idea of giving nuclear fuel to Iran has been rejected. I hope he has a backup plan in mind.
There's a lot more, too. Look at Kerry's words in the debate, and try to explain where he stands. You can't. The war in Iraq was a mistake, but we needed to disarm Saddam, but Bush did it the wrong way, but Kerry voted for it, and it's wrong not to fund our troops, even though Kerry voted against the $87 billion in funding, etc. FACTS. KILL. KERRY'S. MESSAGE.
That's why it's important to focus on facts. We have the power to respond to Kerry's lies and distortions. We don't have to rely on Bush and his...well, horrible public speaking abilities. We can help him out by exposing the idiocy of John Kerry's policy proposals. It may not influence a huge number of people, but it's better than standing on the sidelines and watching Bush stare off into space while Kerry flip-flops before our eyes.
Don't give up. This country was founded on the idea that people can control their own destiny. It was also founded on the idea that people can pick their own leaders, but that doesn't begin and end on Election Day. Voting is important, but it's a good idea to make sure people know what they're getting when they choose a candidate. That's why it's so great to live in this period of history. We have the power to change people's minds by using technology to our advantage. If we focus on facts, we can chip away at Kerry's polished exterior and reveal his hollow center. Besides, whining and victimization are best left to liberals. Republicans believe in changing the world, not blaming everyone else for its problems.
Remember, if you decide that Bush doesn't have a chance of winning, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead, use it to your advantage. Persuade an undecided voter to help Bush take the lead. Explain why Kerry would put us in danger, and mention that he's pulling ahead in the polls. If you know someone who might vote for Bush, but doesn't really care about voting, change his or her mind by referring back to the last election. A few votes can make a big difference.
I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I am doing what I can. This blog is my main way of influencing opinion, but since only a few people read it, I'd like to do more elsewhere. I'm obviously voting for Bush, I have a couple Bush signs on my door, and whenever possible, I try to help change opinions in everyday conversation. I'm also seriously considering joining the Syracuse College Republicans, even though I can't make it to their meetings until next semester. But I am trying. And everyone else can do something, even if it isn't much.
This is not over.