The Four Dumbest Political Statements People Say to Sound Smart

1. Saying you hate both parties equally: Now let me perfectly clear here, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the extreme flaws of both the Democratic and Republican parties.  But this does not mean that there is any logical reason to take the patronizing stance that because both sides have flaws, all sides must be treated with equal disrespect.  It is the political equivalent of saying “McDonald’s is bad for you, as is crack cocaine, thus McDonald’s and crack cocaine are equally bad for you.”  It is a gigantic misstep in logic that I honestly don’t think most people believe—it just adds a preposterous inkling of pseudo-independence for no particularly good reason.

2. Being a Reagan Democrat, Kennedy Republican, etc: For people are willing to be generally transparent about partisanship but still want to look moderate, there’s declaring yourself a Reagan Democrat, a Ron Paul Democrat, a Kennedy Republican, or something to this effect.  But especially with the two cases I’ve cited, it just makes you look woefully uneducated about politics.  Oh, so you’re a Reagan Democrat?  You’re a Democrat who opposes AIDS research and supports extreme militarization in order to run up record deficits?  Oh, and the Kennedy Republicans?  You’re a Republican who support rolling over to Communists?  Now, maybe if you say you’re an Eisenhower Democrat or a Clinton Republican or somebody who at least kind of adheres to the principles you claim to believe, you’ll come off as a moderate.  Otherwise, you’ll come off as a moron.

3. Being a liberal/conservative, except for (fill in blank): This applies pretty much across the board to any issue, but for simplicity I’ll stick to two very, very common ones—Democrats who are pro-life and Republicans who are pro-gay rights.  So, you believe that abortion is akin to murder and you support a party that allows hundreds of thousands of deaths a year?  Oh, so you consider gay rights to be the defining social issue of our time, along the lines of African-American or women’s rights, and YOU’RE SIDING WITH THE OTHER PARTY?  It’s a sticky situation because the party doesn’t allow a whole lot of flexibility in voting for somebody who agrees entirely with you; just let it be known that having a single different stance doesn’t display any actual wisdom.

4. I don’t necessarily support (fill in blank)—I just support states’ rights: Okay, THIS is the worst.  Of all the things that people say to try to sound smart, this is the dumbest, most asinine stance.

So let me get this straight—regardless of the issue, you want to leave it up to the states?  I understand the 10th Amendment grants rights to the states when not designated by the Constitution, but at some point, logic needs to step in.  So, in the pre-Civil War era, when states took matters into their own hands on not-specifically-designated issues and, um, MADE HUMAN OWNERSHIP LEGAL, this is okay?  I mean, if a state says it’s okay, isn’t your whole goddamned argument centered around taking their word for it?

Now admittedly there aren’t really divisive issues in the U.S. at this point as obvious as slavery, but the same idea does hold.  If Arizona decided to round up all illegal immigrants and run them in chariot races at University of Phoenix Stadium (with Jan Brewer in office, this isn’t THAT big of a stretch), where in the Constitution does it say they can be stopped?  I don’t believe it does!  So what is Ron Paul going to say about this one?  “Well, I don’t really *support* having illegal immigrants racing chariots, but that’s really not my business.  The federal government doesn’t have the right to bar Arizona from this law.”

Maybe, just maybe, your belief should be tailored around, you know, what’s right, and not a mechanical way to avoid taking an actual stance.