David McElroy

I’ve never met a Mitt Romney fan in person. They obviously exist — because I see evidence of them on TV and they show up to vote for the man — but I don’t talk to real people who admit to having any enthusiasm for the guy. So why is he going to win the GOP nomination?

The short answer is that he’s the guy who most Republicans see as the least-offensive available candidate who can defeat Barack Obama. That’s not a very high standard to set, but given what most voters believe, it was almost inevitable for Romney to win.

The question I have for Romney voters is what they would hope to achieve by replacing Obama with Romney. Other than the color of their skin and their party affiliation, what are the substantial differences between the men? They certainly pander to different people with their rhetoric, but on the issues of substance, I can’t see that they’re much different. Can you?

The question I have for supporters of the social conservatives in the race — Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry — what do you hope to gain by supporting Romney as your eventual nominee? Does he stand for what you believe? Or do you simply hate Obama so much that you’ll support anyone else?

Keep Reading

It’s been official U.S. government policy for decades to promote democracy around the world. The assumption seems to be that majorities everywhere really want western-style freedoms if they just get a chance to vote for them. Well, guess what? They don’t.

In many places, all the majority really want is to control people who don’t agree with them. I’ve talked before about how freedom and democracy aren’t the same things, but the people of Egypt — newly “freed” from a longtime dictator — seem to be trying to create a textbook case of a democratic tyranny.

In recent voting, Islamists have taken close to two thirds of the seats in the country’s first post-revolution parliament. Roughly 37 percent of the parliament will be held by the Muslim Brotherhood alone. We might be having a look at the future for Egypt right now, though, because a wealthy businessman made the mistake of tweeting the cartoon above — as a joke about how Mickey and Minnie Mouse would be required to look if the religious parties win.

The businessman — who’s a Coptic Christian — faces trial for “insulting Islam.”

Keep Reading

Life is full of tradeoffs. If we choose one thing that we want, we tend to be forced to give up a degree of something else we also value. Being happy isn’t a matter of getting everything we want. It’s a matter of finding the right tradeoffs — deciding what matters most.

It seems as though most modern people have chosen — perhaps unconsciously — the path of accumulating material things over emotional connections with other people. So millions of them sit in their suburban “boxes” and wonder why they’re miserable, even though they’ve achieved what they thought they wanted.

I’m thinking about this because of an old song that someone introduced me to over the weekend. (Listen to the song at the end of the article.) Malvina Reynolds was a singer/songwriter and political activist in the ’60s. I doubt I would have agreed with many of her political positions, but I found myself strongly identifying with her song, “Little Boxes,” which satirizes the antiseptic and meaningless lives that she saw people living in suburban tract homes.

I’m of two minds about people who protest against this “little plastic life.” There’s a part of me that appreciates the standard of living we’ve come to have because of the standardization and mass production of our lives. A world in which everything was custom-built individually is a world where not nearly as many people can afford nice houses and other material things.

On the other hand, there’s a huge part of me that’s repulsed by the world those things have created.

Keep Reading