The Never Post About the Not Vote

I haven't decided for whom to cast my vote in November, and even if I did, I wouldn't tell you.

It's nothing personal. I wouldn't tell anyone except my husband, since he can't divorce me if we disagree. Can he? Is there such thing as divorce on the grounds of political imprudence? Or would that just fall under the "irreconcilable differences" umbrella?

I was raised a conservative. Now, I don't mean politically. I mean socially. Religiously. Sexually. Personally.

I was raised to know that one does not go about trumpeting one's personal doctrine to anyone who will listen. You don't hang your dirty laundry out for all to see. You don't proselytize to casual acquaintances. You don't speak of things that happen behind closed doors, good, bad, or indifferent.

We were taught that although we might have been lower class in terms of our economic status, we did not have to act common and coarse.

We were raised to always behave as though we were as good as everyone else though our clothing was second hand and our meals came from plain white packages with bold black lettering.

And to my mother, that meant that one did not make a spectacle of one's self.

So anyway, I won't tell you who I am voting for. But I will tell you who I am not voting for.

I am not voting for Mike Huckabee.

There are a lot of reasons, and if you've been reading Blogs are Stupid for any length of time, I bet you can extrapolate one or two.

But what it really boils down to is this:

I don't think Mike Huckabee really wants to serve the people.

Mike Huckabee wants to serve SOME of the people and the rest can go fuck themselves because as far as he's concerned, they are condemned to the fires of hell and hardly worth concerning himself with.

That kind of exclusionary bullshit makes me see red. Or blue.

Whatever.

Of which people do I speak?

Gays. Lesbians. And of course, non-believers. But mostly gays and lesbians. Non-believers can always be brought to heel eventually.

And not only does he want to exclude them dogmatically, he wants to exclude them Constitutionally.

Yes folks, Mike Huckabee wants to change the United States Constitution, which is the foundation of our government and has remained unchanged for over 200 years, to settle once and for all that pesky little issue of defining marriage as a union between MAN and WOMAN and no other.

You see, Mike Huckabee believes in the doctrine of slippery slopism. Once you let one do it, you gotta let 'em all do it. If you let a man marry a man, next thing you know, we got women marrying women, women marrying horses, men marrying sheep....where does it end?

"Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic".

God save us from slippery slopists.

Of course, he also wants to change the Constitution to suit his other religious views, so I can't lay all his stupidity and ignorance at the doorstep of homophobia.

It's really about extremism, intolerance, and the inability and/or refusal to empathize with other people. I do not believe such a person can be a strong or effective leader.

Because what he is saying when he expresses a desire for a "faith based" Constitution is the desire to serve a "faith based" constituency. And everyone else be damned, literally.

My Mom and I discussed this recently on my visit home. She guessed right away that I would not vote for Huckabee because he is a "bible thumper". This is not her opinion of him, but she understands that that this is how I perceive him. She knows me better than I like to admit.

She queried if I would really like to see someone in the White House who had no religious beliefs whatever.

I really would have no problem with that, because I don't consider spirituality and morality to be mutually exclusive concepts. I also would have no problem with a person of faith in the White House.

It's simply not a defining issue for me AS LONG AS faith does not eclipse the larger issue of serving the best interests of the people.

What is a defining issue, is Humanism.

Any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.

Is that unrealistic and naive? Probably. But more importantly, it's also desperately at odds with the ruthlessness and that a leader must also sometimes, regrettably, posesss.

Oddly, though I also probably will not be voting for Hilary Clinton, I think that balance is most often succesfully achieved by women.

They can be the tenderest of lovers, the fiercest of protectors, the most compassionate, nurturing and kind. But they can also be ferocious, inexhaustable, determined and resourceful when they or those in their care are threatened. They do not rely on brute force to achieve their goals and vanquish their enemies, but cunning and ingenuity.

While a man will hack and slash and plunder...a woman will plot, and plan and scheme.

The great military triumphs, the physical wresting of lands and riches and dignity from their peoples; for those we can thank a powerful, masterful man.

But behind every great political coup in history, there has been a woman mastermind, even if we never knew about her. I gaurantee it.

Because everyone knows...Women Are Crazy.

So for whom will I vote?

I really have no idea and that's the honest truth. I wish that I could except myself from elections until I am convinced that I am not just voting for the lesser of two evils, which is what I feel I have been doing for quite some years now.

Is it too late to nominate Maya Angelou?