Can I vote for the Other Party?

This show, too, is back on the road now; furthermore, being fed up, I'm going to just come out and talk politics. Be warned that I'm rather tired right now and seriously allergic to some herbage outside, so if this sounds like it comes from an altered mind-state ...

A few things lead me to this extremity. One is recently starting (to my shame) a Facebook profile, which contains a category for political views. The options are (very) liberal, moderate, (very) conservative, apathetic, and other. Conservative, without the "very," would have been an easy choice and not horribly inaccurate. But then, I support things like public funding for the arts and have serious trouble supporting things like the Iraq war, which would make me suspect to most conservatives. But I don't qualify as a liberal because of my views on social issues like abortion and homosexuality, and my (albeit ambivalent) association with Austrian economic theory.

So, I gave "apathetic" a thought; it's true, I can be rather apathetic when I feel that I'm not being offered any decent choices or that politics has just become sensationalised, etc. But I thought that the sheer fact that I obsess over these things proves that I'm not utterly apathetic; I feel guilty if I don't vote on something important.

What did that leave me? Other. So I went ahead and picked that. I mean, anything can thrive under such a broad shade; we can find room for Philosopher King Supporter, Christian Anarchist, Constitutional Monarchist, Oligarchical Timocrat, and so on (all things which I have toyed with to a much greater or much lesser extent).

I guess one of my big problems is that I'm just not impressed with democracy, at least the way we do it. One product of our style is that we do only have these two monstrous, bloated old parties that are practically worthless; like two old boxers who had strikingly different fighting techniques fifty years ago, now drooling on the porch and taking random swipes at one another. Sure, one party will always be pro-abortion and the other anti-; the Republican candidate is always going to propose a bit less of a tax increase -- the problem is that there's no striking vision, no vigour -- and this is coming from a former groupie of the Young Republicans, so trust me, I'm familiar with the most ardent and vigourous of young politics junkies.

Another problem (exacerbated by the above) is the simple fact that human action is difficult to motivate. The quotient of positive or negative incentives which have to be dangled in front of the average man in order to spur him out of lethargy is awesomely huge. Otherwise how could despots endure when, after all, the populace at large always outnumbers the tyrant and his minions? So when it comes to changing something in a democracy, the most leveled-off, status-quo sort of society -- there's no need to hurry. There's no real need to even go and vote, unless you've a special axe to grind. Thus, by choice, only radicals have a say in the political process.

I guess my question is, Is my position of flux and confusion a good thing? Is it actually better to settle in to a party and let yourself be defined as "a conservative" or "a libertarian" or "a socialist" or whatever? Or is it better to play at the outskirts of everyone's party and not ever accept anything quod ipse dixit -- just because they say so? What would happen if more people felt that way?

The second question is also informed by an internet trifle, namely a quiz which showed me being exactly fifty percent conservative and fifty percent liberal (Glencora tells me they cancel out and therefore I have no views ... ). One of the questions, with a yes-or-no answer, was "All authority, by its very nature, should be questioned." I pondered away at that one for a long time. My knee-jerk would be to say No, but then I realised that to call something "authority" had better mean that you have a reason to submit to it. So, isn't dialectically coming up with that reason "questioning" the validity of the authority? I don't mean this in some sort of nineteen-sixties rebellious sense -- just in the sense that blind submission is foolhardy and dangerous. One's answer can be quite definite and range from "he has a shotgun and I don't" to "he saved me from my sins and I owe him my loyalty," but it had better exist. So I hesitantly answered "yes." Any comments?

I welcome comments on anything in this post, or anything related. I know most of my readers think the Iraq war is justified and I know you all have some good arguments, even perhaps in the wake of a new round of slaughter and a whole new operation starting up, so if you want to talk war please be my guest. I shall try to add some more posts soon on related topics and see what I can't work out.

Feels good to be back. Till soon, Prester J.