Here's my political post:

The people on the TV keep telling me that what I care about is the issues. They are wrong. I can't effing listen to another inane argument over issues. I don't give a rat's ass about issues. What I care about are principles.

See... here's what I think. I think 80% of us agree on about 80% of everything. What if we made policies based on the 80% of life upon which we agreed instead of on the 20% that the parties use to make us hate each other? What if we agreed to set aside the small areas of disagreement in favor of accomplishing as much as possible towards the areas of agreement?

Take foreign policy. I think asking candidates what they'd do if Country X attacked Country Y or if we thought Country Z was harboring Terrorist A is about the most useless thing we could possibly do. No situation is ever that cut and dry. No situation is ever that clear cut. Why can't we discuss the principles of America's role in the world instead? Why can't we talk about a foreign policy that decides if our overriding interest is in our own economic security or the natural right of all humans to liberty? Because the two often come into conflict. We like to say that our principles dictate that we support peoples' right to liberty and that's why we're in Iraq. But if that's true, and I think that it is, I have to ask about the people of Pakistan. Why didn't they deserve liberty from Musharraf, a military dictator who overthrew a democratically elected government? Why is it acceptable to us to sacrifice our principles for the sake of what people told us was our "national security?" Why are no politicians willing to have the uncomfortable discussion that throws light on the fact that we are willing to trade other peoples' liberty for our comfort? I don't need to know what a candidate would do if Country X attacked Country Z, I want to know what principles guide a candidate's decisions.

What about the issue of abortion? The two parties have been using it for decades to make people hate each other. They've used it to demonize politicians and disqualify people from office. And so they've fought over policies aimed at the areas of largest disagreement in order to win over the angriest portion of their constituency. But what if, instead of the issue of abortion, they talked about the value and quality of life? I think that's a principle upon which 80% of us agree about 80% of the time. Would 80% us agree that life is precious? Both the life of a child and the life of the mother? I think so. Do we agree on what to do in cases of rape or incest? No, we don't. But what percentage of abortions do those cases represent? Why set policy aimed at people who disagree on that? On the other hand, would most people agree that abortion shouldn't be used as birth control? Maybe not all of us, but I bet about 80% of us would agree that it shouldn't. So why can't we have discussions about the value of life and the issue of abortion that aims at giving women and children the best opportunity at life? Why can't we spend money on better sex education rather than lobbying for or against abortion rights? Once those principles are addressed, then maybe we could get down to discussions about rape and incest. Why lead the discussion with the area of strongest disagreement?

What about health care? Why use it as code for socialism? Why can't any candidate be honest about the fact that we already have a system that is a socialistic-capitalistsic hybrid? Why focus on the 20% of the issue on which we disagree? Despite what candidates say in debates, of course 80% of us agree that health care is a right. We just don't agree on the definition of what health care is. Why can't we develop policy based on our area of agreement? I think 80% of us agree that if we have the ability to prevent an illness from spreading that we should do so regardless of someone's ability to pay for treatment. I also think that we agree that one person shouldn't have to foot the bill through taxes for treatment of the poor health that results from another person's bad choices. But within those poles there is an ocean of common ground that could be the basis for health care policy. If we can't agree on always capping the penalties on malpractice suits, can't we at least agree on capping the penalties on malpractice suits that can be classified as honest mistakes on elective procedures? How much could that legislation lower insurance premiums?

I think about 80% of us agree on about 80% of things like that, but agreement doesn't let politicians and parties make you hate the people with whom you disagree. And hate wins elections. And that's all parties care about. Am I cynical? You bet. I am sick to the point of apathy of being told that there are only two possible solutions to every problem. I don't believe it, and I don't care about issues.

Name the last issue that a politician solved. Exactly.

But... come to think of it... there is one issue that I'd get behind. In fact, I'd vote for anyone who made this the center of their platform. I'd vote for Bert and Ernie if they would accomplish this issue. I'd vote for Cartman and a can of Spam if they could do this. I'd vote for anyone who could lead the country to amend the Constitution and institute congressional term limits.

And that's all I've got to say about politics.