[Cross-posted from The Free Radical]
Yeah, that's me.
I'm one of those simpletons, a Bitter Clinger, as Barack Obama would characterize me. I will vote in this election, as I did in the last election, on a single issue alone. There has been much talk about single issue voters this election, and much of it negative. We're portrayed as ignorant, poorly educated, mindless evangelical drones who care only about one aspect of our favored candidate, be it abortion, gun control, gay marriage or school vouchers. What's worse, from the perspective of most media pundits, these issues are supposed to be unimportant, or else already won by the liberals in the government. How dare we, the unwashed masses who went to public schools and got jobs where our hands get dirty, choose our candidates based on their stances on issues that don't fall within their worldview as something important?
In my recent discussions with liberal acquaintances of mine, I've discovered that they honestly feel those of us on the right, who opposed McCain in the primaries with some vehemence and now support him outspokenly, are rather shallow of intellect, and care only about winning (well, yeah, winning is pretty important). On the other hand, they view themselves as intellectual superiors, choosing their candidates based on some transcendent understanding of things far above the minds of us plebes, and a broad agreement across a variety of policies.
But I would challenge any of them, and indeed anyone from the left, to demonstrate to me how any issue, or any collection of issues, is more important than the single issue on which this voter is making his decisions. The simple fact is that in this era, national security is more important than anything else at stake in the coming election. Truth be told, it always has been, but we were more than fortunate for a good 40 years or so to not have to worry about it so much as we do today. But today, at this critical juncture in American history, we face an enemy so evil and bent on our destruction that we must elect government officials who are going to stand strongly in our defense. If we lack security, nothing else matters. We can continue to bail out Wall Street giants, send out stimulus checks, reform social welfare programs and improve our education and healthcare systems, but if people who are bent on our destruction are not stopped, it is all for naught.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The primary purpose of any government is to ensure the sovereignty of its nation, and to protect its citizens from foreign attack. Everything else is a far distant second.
While I do not agree with Senator McCain on a variety of issues (economic policy and environmental policy come to mind), I trust him infinitely more than Obama to do what is necessary to defend our nation and its interests from foreign attack. I believe that a President Obama would leave us incredibly weak and vulnerable to aggressive rogue nations like North Korea and Iran, and to new, anti-American alliances like the one forming between Russia and Venezuela. The world is only getting more dangerous by the moment, and we need a president who is prepared and resolved to do anything necessary to ensure our survival in it. John McCain fits that description, and Obama simply does not.
So call me simple, or uneducated, but that's the single issue I'm voting on. And it will continue to be so, until we have two candidates who are equally capable of preserving our union.
~Cephas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Wow, that's reopening a can of worms...
I, for one, agree with you.
Ha! Glad to know I'm only 9 months behind the times.
Odd that no one says anything about the single issue voters choosing Obama just because he's black...
actually, Limbaugh today pointed out an AP poll of white, blue-collar Democrats who won't vote for Obama because he's black. Is that the same thing?
Cephas,
I don't know you (or don't think I do), so don't consider this a personal attack. Rather, take it as an observation (or maybe more than one).
The first observation I have is that you seem to propose a narrow definition of national security. I'm not sure what specifically you think Obama would fail to do to protect this country, but the idea that protection only comes from war or from pre-emptive action is a limited one. Force or the threat of force is important, but it is not the all-being answer. In fact, the threat of force can precipitate actions against us.
Moreover, I think the idea upon which you stake your vote -- "If we lack security, nothing else matters" -- is precisely the mindset of a peasant. I say this not to make a personal attack, but merely to point out that to live in a free society where the government undertakes its duties -- including national defense -- at our behest requires a degree of courage. What you seem to be saying is that you will follow anyone who can protect you. How very feudal (and futile?) that thinking is.
On this issue, I don't debate the importance of national defense. I do question your premise that McCain is somehow better qualified to defend or more concerned with the safety of our nation, as if Obama would somehow tell our military to lay down their arms and submit to the will of terrorists. I don't hope to convince you that your choice is wrong. In fact, I've recently seen evidence that this hope is not quite rational.
For what it's worth, I think it's pretty stupid to vote from Obama because he is black -- more stupid, in fact, than voting for McCain because you think he will protect you, and I also think it is the same thing (and equally stupid) to vote for him because he IS black. I think this doesn't get talked about among intelligent folk because it is self-evident, not because their is some conspiracy to keep the question from the people.
The reason to vote for Obama is because he is smarter than McCain and Palin. We can wax romantic about the virtues of the common man, but I want someone with a brain in his or her head. After all, we built this country on being smarter, not stronger. If you doubt this, show up for a fight with your bare hands and watch (briefly) while your opponent kills you with a gun that took a smart man to invent. Or, if you'd rather not take that risk, go back and look at the tactics George Washington used to defeat a far stronger foe (and keep in mind how often he lost on or retreated from the field of battle.
Nice talkin' to ya.
Hey, David. Good to hear from you.
Of course, we've been over this ground many, many times on this weblog, but I'm actually surprised that you would make the statements you have here. They're like a breaking ball hanging over the middle of the plate.
As an example:
"I'm not sure what specifically you think Obama would fail to do to protect this country..."
It turns out that Obama has specifically stated that he will make decisions as president that will reduce the effectiveness of the current and future US Military's ability to defend the United States. Further, he has specifically decided to engage in actions as president that weaken the US position with countries that have declared themselves our enemies. These things are what I believe Obama would specifically do to fail to protect this country.
As an aside, I also think that Obama’s support for borrowing $700 billion against our future to bail out financial companies who inflicted bad debt on themselves also threatens to fail to protect this country by mortgaging it to foreign nations who do not have our best interests in mind. I grant that Bush also supports this travesty, and I oppose him in that regard as well.
Also, I know for a fact that I am not voting for McCain because I think he can somehow protect me, but because I believe he will make decisions that will allow me to protect myself and my nation. I don’t need to hide behind John McCain or anyone else, but I do believe that I need a leader in our bloated and self-centered federal government who will remember that the first priority of that government is to keep the Republic free. I do not think that Obama even understands that concept, which leads me to the second bad pitch:
“The reason to vote for Obama is because he is smarter than McCain and Palin.”
How’s that, exactly?
While I disagree with Obama on almost every one of his positions, I would never, ever think to say that he was stupid. Misguided, perhaps. Blinded by ideology or the chance at power, I’m pretty sure. Stupid? I do not think that anyone who is capable of gaining the nomination of a major political party in the United States can ever be accused of being stupid.
What exactly makes Obama so smart? Is it because he is well spoken? Because he’s educated? Because he’s well traveled? Because he’s personable? The problem with those questions is that they ultimately apply to just about every politician who’s ever lived in one form or another.
Suddenly, it seems like you are saying that people should vote for Obama because he’s smarter than the rest of us. If that’s the case, why vote? We should just crown him and get it over with.
Denny,
Ah the preversity of it all! How I have missed bandying words with you. It's an exercise in frustration, to be sure, but an addiction that is hard to break.
I'm glad you think my pitches were hanging breaking pitches. However, the evidence you offer doesn't so much support your case as it does your belief. There's nothing wrong with that exactly. If you think that our already superior forces and immense spending on "defense" isn't enough, there is little I can do to convince you otherwise.
If Obama does as he says, though, -- reduce wasteful military spending and attempt diplomatic solutions to current problems -- those things won't necessarily weaken us. You disagree that what he thinks is wasteful is actually wasteful. Fine, that's a valid position. You think negotiatiing weakens our position. Fine, though that seems less defensible as a position, it, too, is a valid stance to have. For my part, I think Obama is smart enough to make an intelligent assessment of the situation, not on ideological grounds or a belief in American hegemony, but based on what is actually a workable and effective solution. There's really no compelling argument for or against either candidate on this since none of them have this kind of experience, so it's all a matter of perception and faith.
I agree with you about the bail out. Fortunately, there seems to be a bi-partisan movement in Congress to put some safeguards into the agreement. It certainly isn't a "free market" approach though.
I can't answer what makes Obama so smart. What makes anyone smart? Biology? God? The things you listed, however, are all pretty good indications to me of his intelligence. It's certainly the impression I get from him compared to the current occupant or McCain or Palin.
I'm not saying Obama is the perfect candidate. And I know that it is impossible to change your mind. You have very strongly held beliefs which I've never seen changed by any circumstance or piece of information. Some of your conclusions are actually sound; many others are just self-confirming based on your beliefs. That makes you different from almost nobody.
Hey, I know McCain isn't your perfect candidate either. We both wish we had different choices and those choices would indeed be different. I just see more consistency and more potential in Obama than McCain. When McCain is McCain and not the guy trying to get elected, I actually like him. But he is willing to say anything to anybody to get elected. The hypocrisy of his "maverick" image is there for anyone who cares to see it. Palin might be an attractive choice and have energized the base, but any kind of objective look at her reveals serious flaws. I think people who have already decided how they are going to vote just feel compelled by an almost fanatical passion to defend her in the face of evidence that, were it found in a Democrat, would be the cause of furious attacks on her. And let's be honest, there are people who do the same for Obama.
One last thing:
Suddenly, it seems like you are saying that people should vote for Obama because he’s smarter than the rest of us. If that’s the case, why vote? We should just crown him and get it over with.
Ok. I mean all I really said was that he's smarter than McCain and Palin, but if you think he's smarter than the rest of us too, all the more reason to cast your vote for him. After all, we have copious evidence of what a disaster it is to elect someone who's dumber than all of us. But it sure was nice to have that beer with him, eh? If only we could drink beer with someone other than the President . . . . :)
"And I know that it is impossible to change your mind. You have very strongly held beliefs which I've never seen changed by any circumstance or piece of information. Some of your conclusions are actually sound; many others are just self-confirming based on your beliefs. That makes you different from almost nobody."
Hopefully, that's a tacit admission that your own conclusions fall under the same standards because...
"I can't answer what makes Obama so smart. What makes anyone smart? Biology? God? The things you listed, however, are all pretty good indications to me of his intelligence. It's certainly the impression I get from him compared to the current occupant or McCain or Palin."
...is one of the biggest lines of crap I have heard in a political discussion in quite a while. It insinuates (perhaps I see the insinuation because I am stubbornly immune to information and circumstance) that anyone who disagrees with it must not be very smart either (which may be true in my case, but I digress).
At any rate, I think you hit on something that has bothered me for quite awhile about the nature of the current political debate: neither side can conceive of the notion that it is possible for the other side to reach different conclusions from their own without somehow being mentally flawed. As an example, if I reach a conclusion different from your own based on the same evidence, I am somehow clinging to stubborn belief, yet somehow your own position remains one of enlightened rationality (this is in no way a personal attack, rather it is an observation based on the quotes at hand. The reverse is often also true).
The result of this condition is the near impossibility of real rational debate on the very important issues facing our nation today. Because McCain/Palin supporters are unenlightened hicks and because Obama/Biden supporters are pompous egotists, nothing useful is accomplished by the resulting clash.
I find this phenomenon all the more interesting because I have spent a great deal of my life traveling in many of the circles that seem to define the debate. As a result, I believe (heh) that I have a very unique perspective informed by multiple points of view, yet I find myself confounded by the (il)logic that concludes that anyone who disagrees with someone else's conclusion based on so-called facts is somehow deficient.
What I know to be true is this: rarely does anyone possess such a preponderance of facts that their conclusion is unassailable. Personally, I have and always will reserve the right to modify my opinions based on new information; however, there is no doubt that I have to be convinced. If I continue to remain unconvinced the reason is because the evidence was uncompelling and for no other cause. I believe everyone on this list uses the same standard for changing their views.
What remains, then, is trying to understand how so many educated, rational people can come to such different conclusions when presented with the same evidence. I wonder what would happen if we stopped assuming things about the other side for a moment and really listened to what they had to say.
Didn't McCain go to the Naval Academy? Seems like you need to be pretty smart to go there. And he was a naval aviator. Having flown small airplanes (Cessnas, to be exact), you definitely need to have some brains and wits about you to not fly into the nearest tree.
And I know plenty of people who have never been to a college who are smarter than some people I graduated with at WSU and UC.
Can a person be smart and strong? Obama may have smarts, but the strong? I don't see the evidence.
Before I forget, David is right about the fact that McCain is not my optimal candidate for president this year. In many ways, the choice of candidates I had made me focus more on my "deal breaking" issue of national security than I would have otherwise, although, to be fair, that issue has eclipsed almost all others since 9-11 anyway.
Chris,
You asked earlier if voting for or against someone because of his race is the same thing. To me, yes it is.
To me, voting for someone because of some kind of personally defining feature--black, white, Democrat, Republican, man, woman, whatever-- is the completely wrong reason to vote. I am voting for McCain because he shares my views on issues important to me. I am voting against Obama because he holds positions I strongly disagree with on those same issues.
McCain could be green lichen and Obama could be a supermodel, and if they held the same positions they do now, I would vote the same.
I think rather than being a simpleton single-issue voter, that makes me a much more reviled principled voter.
Denny,
1) I admit nothing. :)
2) No insinuation intended. I find him to be smart in my experience of him. That's all I'm saying. If you don't think he is smart, there's not much to say about that one way or the other. It actually makes some sense since you hold different views than he does -- makes sense that you'd think his judgement, at the very least was off.
3) Two things on this: I agree the tone of public "debate" sucks. It's by design; I'm certain of that -- at least on an "official" level. The other thing is, I'm not sure how much of the same evidence we actually see. Most people self-select their sources of information and those sources have become increasingly biased. And I don't mean biased in that casual way that any point of view is, well, a point of view, but I mean in a determined sort of way. As an example, a Rush Limbaugh has no interest in the truth. Wait, that's wrong. He's actively trying to create a truth for his listeners. He has no interest in any kind of objectivity. That, I think, is a reasonable statement. This doesn't mean his rhetoric is "fact-free" -- he does sometimes state facts, but his tone is always that of someone trying to incite the base. I contrast him with George Will who, though he will sometimes take an establishment position contrary to his otherwise indicated beliefs, is most often a rational voice on an issue. I feel that way most of the time even when I disagree with him.
3) cont'd "What remains, then, is trying to understand how so many educated, rational people can come to such different conclusions when presented with the same evidence."
Did you click on the link in my original comment? The study referenced in the article is amazing in its implications. Basically it says that the incompetent are incapable of seeing the flaws in their abilities. I think this is the reason for a LOT of the entrenched views that get shouted. Lack of real information combined with a lack of rational skills combined with an emotional prediliction (spelled that wrong for sure) for a particular view results in intractible and almost violently expressed views.
I don't think anyone on this blog suffers from that particular set of deficiencies. We have our own, different problems. However, I think a lot of public discourse -- especially in the "blogosphere" suffers from this. In the MSM and the nearly-MSM portion of the "blogosphere" I think there is a concerted attempt to keep the debate on a less than rational level. The real fracture in this country is not along the right/left axis; it's along the ruling/ruled axis. Corporate media is part of the ruling class (and I'm using that term a bit loosely here; I'm not really trying to be dramatic, but I couldn't think of a better set of short terms) so they have a vested interest in foisting the government/corporate line.
But what the hell do I know. I'm just an intractible liberal who seeks out self-confirming information to insulate my worldview from any real challenge. :)
Wow, I’m away for a few days burning hydrocarbons and giggling like a little girl, and what have I come back to… Can of worms indeed!
Just a few notes:
“The first observation I have is that you seem to propose a narrow definition of national security. I'm not sure what specifically you think Obama would fail to do to protect this country, but the idea that protection only comes from war or from pre-emptive action is a limited one.”
True, and I did not mean to convey that national security is an issue limited only to the application of military force. To be sure, there are many and interwoven aspects to the national security spectrum, from force to diplomacy, and from foreign aid to energy policy. But I chose, in my swiftly-written and necessarily short post, to limit the discussion to the obvious. However, I have yet to see Obama make any statement regarding any policy that would, in my mind, increase the security of our nation one bit. To make that a bit more pithy, I think he’s bad for all of our national security interests, not just the military aspect.
“ Force or the threat of force is important, but it is not the all-being answer. In fact, the threat of force can precipitate actions against us.”
That is also quite true, but points to the question of discretion, not strength. A common misconception I find many liberals espouse regarding conservatives is that we want to kill everyone, all the time. And (insert dry sarcasm here) while that may seem like an attractive alternative at times, most conservatives know full well that it is far better to resolve a matter diplomatically than go wasting our rather expensive precision weapons on it. That said, given the apparent naivety I’ve heard and seen from Obama, I don’t trust his judgment, either.
“Moreover, I think the idea upon which you stake your vote -- "If we lack security, nothing else matters" -- is precisely the mindset of a peasant. I say this not to make a personal attack, but merely to point out that to live in a free society where the government undertakes its duties -- including national defense -- at our behest requires a degree of courage. What you seem to be saying is that you will follow anyone who can protect you. How very feudal (and futile?) that thinking is.”
My statement required no interpretation, honestly. I’ll put it more simply, since I am a simpleton. If somebody’s blowing up our crap, it doesn’t matter a tit if we’re feeding the homeless. It’s really that easy, so far as I am concerned. Certainly, we can worry about how to interpret the constitution, and how to fix social security, and all of those things, and those are worthy debates, but they can only be addressed after the primary issue of security. And it remains the primary role of any national government, as it has been from the beginning of governments, to ensure the sovereignty of its nation, as I have said. Should a government fail to do that, the nation ceases to be. It may be a somewhat feudal concept, but it remains true nonetheless.
Further, attacking a concept on the grounds that it doesn’t sound sophisticated enough lowers the argument to, well, sophistry.
“The reason to vote for Obama is because he is smarter than McCain and Palin.”
I would contend that, even if it were true that Obama were smarter than McCain/Palin (and I’m not convinced, but that’s been covered more than adequately), this is not a contest of intelligence alone. I don’t believe that there is a single personal attribute that qualifies someone to hold the highest elected office in the world. Intelligence is certainly a virtue, and a necessary one for the office, but one should also have excellent judgment, a depth and breadth of knowledge of the world, the economy, and the people, an unrivaled work ethic, and a host of other qualities. All the rocket scientists in the world aren’t qualified for the office of president simply on their intelligence.
“If Obama does as he says, though, -- reduce wasteful military spending and attempt diplomatic solutions to current problems -- those things won't necessarily weaken us. You disagree that what he thinks is wasteful is actually wasteful. Fine, that's a valid position.”
I would go so far as to say it’s more than a valid position; it’s approaching the level of what I’d call fact. The statements Obama has made with regards to defense spending in particular, though they have not yet been so specific as to name individual programs, lead me to believe that he is not willing to invest money in the research and development of defense technology unless it is a nearly proven commodity. Had presidents past taken this same stance, we would have none of the technology today that gives us the military edge we have today. Technologies like stealth, smart weapons, nuclear power and even the internet were no more than a pipe dream when someone convinced the DoD to start spending money on them.
“The real fracture in this country is not along the right/left axis; it's along the ruling/ruled axis. Corporate media is part of the ruling class (and I'm using that term a bit loosely here; I'm not really trying to be dramatic, but I couldn't think of a better set of short terms) so they have a vested interest in foisting the government/corporate line.”
I agree very closely to your assessment there, though I would say that the fracture is more complex than simply between ruling and ruled. The fracture we’re talking about is one of the main reasons why I perennially become so disheartened when discussing politics and the government, because it doesn’t seem possible for normal, rational people like you and I, with no interests in mind than the betterment of our country, to get elected and start to undo what has been so horridly done in Washington. However, the more depressing rift I see in our country is between those who care enough, and are intelligent enough to educate themselves on what is going on around them, and those who simply like to fling the proverbial poo, or worse, don’t care at all. And it bothers me more because the poo-flingers and apathetics reside on both sides of the political aisle and make both of us look bad, reinforcing the stereotypes that were described above.
I retain hope, dim though it may be, that someday both of those trends may be reversed, and our nation may be governed once again by people more like, well, ourselves. Then maybe we’ll find ourselves voting for candidates who actually represent us, rather than those we are forced to choose between.
Sorry for the novel...
Cephas,
Couldn't agree more with your last point. Some of your other comments, however, I question.
First, debate your statement about Obama not "increas[ing] security." I'm not debating your opinion here, though I'd like to hear from you what you think is the problem with Obama's approach, not to debate you, but just to have you clarify your reasons.
What I do think is an interesting debate topic is the idea of increased security. One what basis are we even to judge this? Is there a scorecard somewhere that shows we're only at an 8 but we need to be an 11? Let me say, that I really like the idea of living in a country that has cutting-edge military technology. It certainly makes me feel better about our chances against any enemies. However, how much more do we really need? I would posit that neither of us knows the answer to that question and that our response to this issue is almost purely emotional rather than rational.
"most conservatives know full well that it is far better to resolve a matter diplomatically than go wasting our rather expensive precision weapons on it. That said, given the apparent naivety I’ve heard and seen from Obama, I don’t trust his judgment, either."
Again, I'm interested in what you think it naive about Obama's approach that makes his judgment questionable. More importantly, however, is what I'm beginning to believe is true naivete in your comment. I think you misplace the locus of control. It's not conservatives, per se, who make these decisions, it's the so-called military-industrial complex (m-ic) itself. From their point of view, there can be no waste of our expensive precision weapons other than to let them sit idly. We must use them, and indeed have conflict in order to use them, so that we require more. That's what makes their expense so appealing to the m-ic because it profits.
"If somebody’s blowing up our crap, it doesn’t matter a tit if we’re feeding the homeless. It’s really that easy, so far as I am concerned."
And that's why, if you'll pardon me, you're so easily mislead. I don't claim to have some oracular vision, but the idea that all other concerns must be put aside in a time of armed conflict is precisely why war is so effective a tool in loosening the people's grip on their liberties. It's why an imagined or overblown threat is just as effective as a real one because people are so willing to set aside all sorts of considerations until the crisis is over. News flash -- the world and our country is ALWAYS in crisis. We must be able to address multiple issues. If the threat we faced was truly grave, we would not be approaching it in such a piece-meal fashion. Terrorists are real, but the threat they pose has been exaggerated to create a distraction while those in power consolidate that power by eroding our liberties. I know that's a statement that sounds hysterically extreme because it's really hard to accept that our own countrymen would do that to us, but I think there is ample evidence to at least consider the point.
"Further, attacking a concept on the grounds that it doesn’t sound sophisticated enough lowers the argument to, well, sophistry."
I wasn't aware that I did this. In any case, a concept needs to be sophisticated enough to support its meaning. When it isn't, it is completely appropriate to attack it on the basis of a lack of sophistication. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about how some people are naive.
"The statements Obama has made with regards to defense spending in particular . . . lead me to believe that he is not willing to invest money in the research and development of defense technology unless it is a nearly proven commodity. Had presidents past taken this same stance, we would have none of the technology today that gives us the military edge we have today."
A fair point. However, given your desire to prioritize, it's fair to ask, do we always need to be spending as we do? Not every president has acted as Obama says he will, but many have and we still have the world's preeminent military by a factor of about 10. Furthermore, spending smart is more effective than merely spending a lot. I think that's all he's talking about. Of course, I think we've established that definitions of "smart" vary. :)
Last, but not least, I love novels. Always glad to read a detailed response.
David,
A few responses:
"Did you click on the link in my original comment?
I did, but I was really thinking about the question from the perspective of people who are actually consciously trying to look at the problem objectively (like I think we try to do most of the time here). I agree that a lot of this problem could be the result of monstrous political an corporate machines looking out for their best interests, but I'm not sure that completely explains why a "liberal" and a "conservative" think tank full of informed, intelligent people (not journalists, political hacks, or appointees but actual subject matter experts) can come to such remarkably different conclusions (unless, of course, my theoretical think thank does not exist). I think the lack of concise, comprehensible, professional opinions on a lot of these topics leads to the current ambiguity.
"...the world and our country is ALWAYS in crisis. We must be able to address multiple issues. If the threat we faced was truly grave, we would not be approaching it in such a piece-meal fashion."
What better reason to maintain a well-equipped, all-volunteer military so that everyone else can focus on the rest of the issues without being worried about how they will defend themselves? I am not being callous when I point out that our current military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq would be virtually invisible, even with their enormous financial cost, if the media were not covering them them way they are. This is not to say that the military and its operations do not need oversight, but rather to point out that the system is working the way it is supposed to.
"...do we always need to be spending as we do? Not every president has acted as Obama says he will, but many have and we still have the world's preeminent military by a factor of about 10.
I contend that point, but do so in this post
Denny,
"What better reason to maintain a well-equipped, all-volunteer military so that everyone else can focus on the rest of the issues without being worried about how they will defend themselves?"
We actually agree on this in principle; we just disagree on the definition of what is well-equipped enough. Those details always trip us up, don't they? :)
My point to Cephas was merely that being single issue about military spending or war is to concede to being narrowly focused on the issues all the time since we're constantly (told that we are) in a state of crisis. I think there are people who don't have our best interest in mind that want us to be single issue focused because they benefit from that narrow approach.
Post a Comment