Over the last nine months, one thing has become apparent to me: party labels are pretty much for idiots, at least here in the United States. I started this journey as a Democrat who was disillusioned with politics. I’m still pretty much sick of politics, but I’m even more sick of the pigeonholing that surrounds it. I’ve been called right-wing, Tea Party, libertarian, a member of the KKK, and last but not least, ISIS. GamerGate has shown me just how meaningless all these terms really are.

It’s time to move past it. 

I realize this is easier said than done, and that we only have a two-party system (again, in the U.S). But consigning yourself to one side or the other is madness. Even if you usually end up voting one way in the end, that party or candidate should still have to work for your vote. When they don’t have to, complacency and atrophy set it. You can see it now with just how rotten and decayed our politics are. New ideas are few and far between. We mostly just argue over the same shit we always have…some of these debates stretching back decades. It’s time to clear some things off the table, yet we never seem to be able to.

I think part of the reason is politicians, on both sides, no longer feel like they really have to earn their way. Of course there are other factors that I don’t want to diminish, but in my opinion, this is a big one. Just take a look at some of the degenerates we’ve elected, Democrats and Republicans. Do you think some of these assholes could have gotten elected without a compliant voter base who mostly does as they’re told? I certainty don’t.

My personal philosophy is liberal in a lot ways, yes. But I pick up ideas and policies from a wide variety of areas. I feel like most people are the same way. So why to we consign ourselves to one side before we even begin? It doesn’t make any sense, and pols take advantage of it. Look at how both sides routinely fuck over their base. They both know that they aren’t going anywhere, and so they can sell them up the river almost at will, as long as they pay them rhetorical lip-service. It seems rather stupid to willingly be a pawn. Independence is a much better state, in all parts of life. It only stands to reason that it extends to the political sphere.

So, I’ve decided to become a political free agent. I’m going to listen, watch, and react accordingly. I guess I already have been like this the last few months, but this is me officially declaring it. I haven’t changed my views or convictions. I just discovered how bankrupt putting a tag on myself is. Hopefully, others will do the same. If you look at the polling, and the rise of the independent share, I guess many of you already have. Maybe I’m just late to the party. Either way, I’m here now.

  1. I think this is common throughout GamerGate. I have never been a red vs blue kind of person, but I never saw the full scope of the bullshit before this. I was buying into liberal propaganda and was not aware of it. I am fully aware now that neither side has a monopoly on good ideas or good people. Both sides try and poison the well of the other side and any third parties. I now see people who say they are right wing or left wing, liberal or conservative, democrat or republican as naive. This us vs them mentality is the problem.

  2. as an american i think one of the problems is that money has become so important for elections that it has increased the power of the two major parties. it’s nearly impossible for there to be a democrat or republican that breaks away from the party platform in any substantial way because to do so would result in the loss of the tremendous finances that each national party controls. this process has had the unintended consequence of forcing politicians in the middle to either polarize their positions further to the left or to the right to ensure the continued financial support required to run a campaign or to quit politics entirely.

    for me personally this means that there’s never really any ideal choices with regards to candidates. no one that has a chance to be supported by either party can represent those of us that are willing to support good ideas no matter which party they come from. that being said i still vote and encourage every one to participate in elections no matter how discouraging it might be. a choice between “lesser evils” still results in less evil but it is in no way an ideal choice.

      1. I hate to admit it, but this is the I’ve voted for MANY years. I vote for the candidate I dislike the least. There hasn’t been a viable 3rd choice for president most of my adult life IMHO, and I’m far removed from my youth.

        Our present political system is infested with morally corrupt, self-serving crooks who would – and often DO – throw me (and most of the middle class) under the bus for their own personal gain.

        As unrealistic as it sounds, I think the current political slate needs to be wiped clean so we can start from scratch.

        1. Agreed. Look at Chicago- the city has made promises it knows it cannot keep yet Rahm Emanual, who only attempted minor reforms, was challenged from the left by someone who promised the goodie train would never stop. Voters don’t support real reform.

  3. Accountability is nonexistent in government and because of this the only driving force for politicians is getting (re)elected. The media has abdicated its role as government watchdog to become a cheerleader for the State.

    Think for yourself. Question Authority. https://youtu.be/UIsXZVhvvGs

  4. Good for you, Ralph. Politicians, in an ideal world l, work for the people. Not the vested interests of their parties. For us to stop questioning them or their party is to reinforce their power.

    Politics shouldn’t be a team game. It’s electing effective leaders.

    It’s why I was astounded after the mid terms that feminists like Valenti weren’t happy with the number of female representatives, because they were republican. To her, it wasn’t about women. It was about the right kind of women.

  5. There is a reason that the saying “money is the root of all evil” exists. Though any american should be able to run for office that is not a possibility anymore. Now a person needs millions in the bank before they can even think of running for a political office. There is a reason why so many congressmen are lawyers. While not all politicians are inherently corrupt I believe that the corrupt are in the majority. Our elected officials have far too much power and influence and term limits are so badly needed.
    Harry Reid, the senator from my state of Nevada has been in office since 1987. That is 28 years and in my opinion 23 too many. Political positions should never be a career and unfortunately things will get worse before it gets better. Washington is out of control and the liberals are only making it worse. It probably will not happen in my lifetime but I believe a second American revolution is inevitable. A system where the elite that make the laws are exempt from them will not be tolerated for very long.

    1. All elected positions should have term limits and a fair deal of non-elected positions (Supreme Court Justices and FCC heads, for example) should have terms instituted to combat political entrenchment as well as be subject to the approval of the American people. While we’re at it, end the Electoral College. It’s an archaic institution that repeatedly proves itself a hindrance to the modern electorate’s voice being properly heard.

      While i participate in the political process, I have no faith in it. If they added a “No Confidence” choice to the ballot, you can bet your ass that would sum up my 2016 votes in a nutshell.

      1. This has been one of my pet peeves in a nutshell. Statists will snottily insist ‘oh, if you don’t like X you can vote them out next election’. Well, yes, I can vote out the Congresscritters. What about the bureaucrats that are dug in like ticks?

      2. All elected positions should have term limits and a fair deal of non-elected positions (Supreme Court Justices and FCC heads, for example) should have terms instituted to combat political entrenchment as well as be subject to the approval of the American people.

        In Canada Senators and Federal Judges (including the Supreme Court) have to retire at age 75.

    2. “So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

      When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

      Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

      But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.” – Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual

      I.E. Money isn’t evil, money is what people use to do things.

      Like you I condemn evil things people do with money, but the money itself is as blameless as the gun in a murder. It’s an object. A medium of action for rational beings.

  6. I agree-the Left vs Right dichotomy is now outdated. It now boils down to Authoritarian vs Liberal now. It is sad when politics calcifies like this as it is supposed to be an engine for change.

    As a Britbong, I’ve always been puzzled by you Colonials and your politics. In a country where the consumer is king, and choice is everything I struggle to understand why you only have 2 parties?

    I mean, over here we use FPTP as well-but we’ve seen an explosion of political parties in recent years. Just puzzles me how a huge democracy like the US is happy with Coke & Pepsi.

    1. The bottom line at a personal level is an *argument* that’s a ‘fight’ for “collectivism” versus “individualism” (“collective action” as Obama said) manifest as authoritarianism versus non-authoritarianism (a sliding scale from full control over society and the individual on one side to no control on the other)

      And the recent post by Sarkeesian backs this up; their brand of feminism (self proclaimed “liberal” or “progressive” feminists) discounts individual agency (libertarian feminists like Sommers et al) in favour of the greater good, that an ‘elite’ (for want of a better word) know better, and can ‘guide’ a society indoctrinated with toxic ideas (“sexism”, “misogyny”, “rape culture” etc.) in the right direction. This of course implies they’re superior to the masses and are somehow able to step outside, or remain somehow unaffected by, the very same society from which they came and claim they want to ‘help’. Something just about every dictator that’s ever existed has said and used as a rational for what they then go on to do.

      What these people don’t understand is it’s not just *our* freedoms they take, it’s *theirs* as well. Reading a few history books would clue them in on that.

      1. Invariably, they believe when the dust settles they’ll be in better positions. They consistently forget the fate of the brownshirts in Germany, or the Bolsheviks and Trotskyites in Russia.

      2. Well from what I heard , history professors can’t even teach history anymore as according to the SJW’s/radfems, history is triggering.

        1. There’s a quote that springs to mind. Something about forgetting the past and being condemned to repeat it…

      3. The bottom line at a personal level is an *argument* that’s a ‘fight’ for “collectivism” versus “individualism” (“collective action” as Obama said) manifest as authoritarianism versus non-authoritarianism (a sliding scale from full control over society and the individual on one side to no control on the other)

        I’d say it’s not “collectivism” versus “individualism”, it’s authoritarianism versus non-authoritarianism,a group of friends voting what restaurant to go to is collectivism in action (majority rules, minority obeys), but it’s not bad at all, while on the other hand a sociopath is pretty much pure individualism (it’s all about them, and other people are just a different type of tool), but it’s very bad.

        It’s not what you organize around that matters, what matters is how you organize.

        1. A few friends deciding to go to dinner at a certain location is most certainly *not* collectivism in any shape or form because their actions do not extend beyond their immediate circle and they still have individual agency. Collectivism in the context being discussed roundly negates those options. There’s a significant difference between ‘common action’ and ‘collectivism’, the former is bottom-up, the latter is top-down.

          [ETA] but yes, this is essentially an issue of ‘authority’, of others telling people what they can and cannot do (without valid rationale), voiding their agency and individuality at the same time.

  7. If only you saw the disgraceful mess that a multi party system has become in my country…

    But congrats for being free anyway. I’m not sure where gamergate fits in all this but it’s a good thing anyway

  8. Ralph echoes my own sentiments. I tend towards conservatism/libertarianism, but I frankly think our choices are boiling down to either statism/authoritarianism, or liberty.

    Embracing liberty will involve tolerating things that you don’t like. You don’t have to APPROVE of ’em, but you have to learn to put up with them. Because the alternative is to suppress them, and then you’re right back in the statist corner.

    1. Precisely.

      Tolerating and Accepting are two very different things that have been conflated in the modern era for far too long.

      See also: South Park ‘The Death Camp of Tolerance’

  9. Party is irrelevant. The only question is what do you want the government to do. Punish those who steal, are violent, or lie and cheat and leave it at that? Or do to try – kill liberty as needed – to use it to control behavior and thought?

  10. I’ve given up on associating myself with any particular party. They are irrelevant in the bigger picture which should be the betterment of this country. If anything they have become like another religion where you can’t even question certain things in politics with starting a war.

  11. I found it’s been my experience that the media and controllers try to reduce every election down to a single issue, so they can swing it on the single issue moron voters. Look over the last few big ones: gay marriage, immigration, DADT, Iraq, gun control, it’s even cyclical where the same topics come back as the issue. The fairest thing IMO is liberty, my view of every issue is: does this proposed law take away someone’s freedom to do something that’s not hurting anyone? If so, it’s an unnecessary law.

  12. For awhile I’ve believed that we kind of need to just reboot the who damn system. I consider myself neutral and I try to stay out of politics but I have noticed a lot of my thoughts sort of steer towards the right. It just seems that the 2 parties are so entrenched in their dislike of each other nothing gets done. That’s fine that both sides can be in discussion (that is the point of course) but when was the last time both sides where able to have an actual discussion. Instead they are too busy throwing shit at each other and not looking at serious issues. When one side comes up with an idea the other side shoots it down. There is rarely a compromise. Doesn’t help the fact that both sides want to send their own party back to the stone age with their stupidity. One side is called the Nazi party the other side is called the Communist part. Doesn’t help the fact that the accused party is not helping their case in the slightest. I may sound naive and I probably am but from where I am standing this is the circus that I am seeing.

  13. ,,,i can’t remember which stand-up comic presented it, but jesters speak truth sometimes and th’ truth in an idea will outlive th’ teller…he or she said that th’ system is so screwed, we would probably fare better if all congressmen, senators and th’ president were chosen like we do jury duty: pick random fuckers off th’ registered voter rolls…th’ only position not picked this way would be vice president, still chosen by th’ prez,,,i find less reasons to not agree with this weekly, daily sometimes,,,

    1. William Buckley said he’d rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard. The main reason Gamergate has been called “right wing”,(and also why “name” conservatives embrace it more than “name” Progressives) is that conservatives are aware of how abysmal the media is (press covering politics is, honestly, as bad as gaming press) so this call for ethics is right up the wheel house of conservatism.

      Not saying be Republican because they’re as bad as Dems (Republicans do a lot of what we call “failure theater” where they pretend to oppose.policies but pass bills to actually make the policies easier).

  14. Fun news. Joss Whedon got chased off twitter by SJWs for a joke he made in Age of Ultron (don’t spoil it I still haven’t seen it).

  15. Yeah I agree on dropping the labels. I am me, and me only. Although I really do pray that a third party can one day fill the gap between the left and the right to avoid the crapfest that comes with our current two party setup.

  16. As a progressive liberal, my libertarian side came out with GamerGate. I had no idea the authoritarian political correctness trying to be imposed on art and entertainment by these unwittingly puritanical SJWs. Not only that, they just lie through their teeth to manipulate people, and end up acting like hypocrites.

    I may support a movement and use its label to speak my mind, but I certainly don’t nail myself to it.

Leave a Reply

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