« Flu vaccine shortage | Main | Abortion »

Perot in '92!

The other night I was looking at this electoral vote map. "What's up with this looking exactly like the map four years ago!" I shrieked. "What does it take to get people to change their minds?"

After four years of Bush's radicalism and terrorist attacks and whatnot, you'd think people wouldn't be voting the exact same way they did in 2000. I'd have thought that the map would either be all red or all blue, but not equally red-and-blue in the same pattern that we saw in the Bush-Gore election. Apparently, people just don't change their minds that fast.

This got me thinking about myself; after all, if I'm going to be critical of tens of millions of people, I'd rather not be subject to the same criticism myself. I prefer to criticize others from the safety of a holier-than-thou position.

So I thought back to my own history of voting in Presidential elections. This record is equivocal:

1992: Perot over Clinton and Bush
1996: Clinton over Dole
2000: Nader over Gore and Bush

I haven't been a one-party voter, and this shows at least that my vote isn't captured by the Democrats. Some folks would think that my Perot vote demonstrates that I'm not captured by the liberals, either. So in this sense, I've proven my ability to change my mind.

On the other hand, I haven't once voted for a Republican. The closest I came to considering it was Jack Kemp in his primary battle with Dole, and John McCain in his primary battle with George W. Bush. (Both of my preferred Republicans lost, so clearly as a Republican voter I'm out of step with the party. Bastards.) So I suppose that on one issue at least, I haven't been able to change my mind. The Republican Party generally runs the most inferior candidates for President of any party in America.

So, can I safely criticize the hundreds of millions of people who seem poised to vote for the same party in 2004 as they did in 2000? Of course. Even if I can't really say I'm holier than anybody else, I'm gonna do it anyway.