change I still can’t believe in

I was reading this SLOG post, and just had to make note of it here.

Looks like Catholic voters are still an Obama weakness, but there’s some movement in his direction. Seems to me like he could pick up a few more—especially among voters who care about just war theory, the death penalty, and asking for forgiveness when you’ve made a terrible mistake. But I was raised by hippie Catholics, so what do I know.

(If you’re curious: Obama won the small Latino vote in Virginia but lost the smaller Latino vote in Maryland.)

How disgusting. People actively showing interest in the segmentation-for-manipulation of our population in an attempt to figure out which subculture, religious affiliation, or skin color of people to appeal to for votes. The division of America is being planned and discussed in the open by politicians and their ilk who have nothing to stand on or for but turning people against each other. This Talking Points Memo puts it well at one point:

The Obama campaign’s instruction to their volunteers to steer clear of policy questions. How can we truly bring about real political change if the movement the Obama people are building is devoid of ideological content, content merely to mouth gauzy generalities about “coming together” and “yes we can”?

..and from Megan McArdle at The Atlantic:

I’m watching his speech now, and it’s inspiring. But it’s also saddening, because deep down, I don’t believe that Obama is going to change Washington, eliminate lobbying, etc. I wish he wouldn’t tell me things that I can’t possibly believe–and moreover that I can’t really understand anyone believing. He might be the best president; he might even make Washington work a little better, though I kind of doubt it. But he isn’t going to transform American politics in the utopian way his speech implies. No one who has dried out behind the ears could reasonably believe that he has this power. So why is he saying he does?

When you avoid real questions of policy and instead pander to population segments, you are not fulfilling your duty to the people as a whole. When the people themselves expect — and even encourage — that pandering, the system has failed.

A real politician who stands for actual, real, serious change, like our buddy Ron Paul, needs not pander to subgroups in an attempt to buy their votes with fake smiles and pats on the head. Unfortunately, in our broken system that means that he earns only 10% of the vote. Regardless, I would rather vote for someone I know will lose than to throw my vote away on a momentary perception of a lesser evil — or worse try to prove a point by selling my vote to a candidate with darker skin, or different genitalia.