Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Shut Up, Conservatives, Bush Did It Too

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/09/02

It is ridiculous how many times I hear that line from liberals, despite the numerous times conservatives such as myself have declared Bush to be “not conservative” on many of his actions. It is also ridiculous how many times conservatives such as myself have pointed out where we smacked GWB around, figuratively speaking, and yet the liberals refuse to acknowledge that part.

As far as the liberals are concerned, all (R) are conservatives. Or, probably more accurately, all conservatives give passes to any (R). This couldn’t be further from the truth. Conservatives view themselves as conservatives. It just so happens that (R) is the only viable option at this time for conservatives, but that may not always be the case.

In fact, I was ready to find a third-party candidate for POTUS this past election because the (R) was everything but conservative. And a great many “evangelical Christian fundamentalist” leaders (re: my comment attached to my “layman” article) were also ready to find a third-party candidate for their votes. It was clear to them and to me that the (R) candidate for POTUS was unacceptable. When the (R) candidate for veep was announced, and I did a modicum of research on her, I decided I would vote for her for veep. My vote for her for veep was not a vote for the (R) candidate for POTUS in the least. In fact, I was highly offended by his camp’s treatment of her.

But that is tangential.

The liberal valuation of conservative == (R) is grossly erroneous. As a former math ed major, I wouldn’t even show partial credit for that one. Refresher: Higher math courses give partial credit for a wrong answer that shows right work. But, in mathematical terminology, I can give a simplified description of current political standings.

(D) == negative integers
(R) == non-negative integers
All non-integers are rounded to integer valuations.

With those three rules in place, GWB and the (R) POTUS nominee would fit into the non-negative set, with less-than-careful rounding. GWB was fractionally positive, but not so much that he rounded positive. So he rounded zero (in my book), which is non-negative. McCain was fractionally negative (to be generous), but not so negative to be -1 (to be generous). So he rounded to zero as well, which is non-negative. Conservatives, on the other hand, are at +1 or greater, while liberals are at -1 or lesser.

On a mathematical scale, Democrats are negative, liberals are negative and sometimes more negative than Democrats (but that is an increasingly difficult distinction), Republicans are non-negative (when using generous rounding rules), and conservatives are positive.

It is my assertion that most conservative citizens vote Republican because there is no viable positive parties for which to vote, not because Republicans are positive. It is becoming increasingly clear, at least to me, that Republicans, while being non-negative, thus better than liberals and Democrats, are in actuality generously at zero, thus non-negative and non-positive simultaneously.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: