Trego's Mountain Ear

This morning, I read a quote from Mamdani – the Socialist candidate who seems to have cinched the race for mayor of New York: “We need to ban all guns.” I understand his point – if there were no guns, nobody would be shot (by guns). We can’t argue the point though – it was the big issue that made me cast a Trump ballot in 2016. I knew where Hillarie stood on guns, and had hopes that Trump was closer to my view. Here in northwest Montana, I don’t even need to go into any greater detail to be understood – and in New York, Mamdani doesn’t have to, either.

Still, I’m not a single-issue voter. Economics – there is a point where borrowing money can lead to increased wealth. I don’t disagree with John Maynard Keynes on this premise. On the other hand, I can’t see how spending money our nation doesn’t have on some of the frivolities that DOGE has cut from foreign aid helps us any. It’s one thing to borrow to fund something that will produce income – and quite another to borrow to spend on a project that just gets us deeper in debt.

I don’t particularly favor capital punishment – but I do recognize that there are some people wandering around whose misconduct won’t stop for anything less. I’ve researched the behavior of some of the worst in prisons.

I had a lib come by at the fair years ago – he explained that, since my party had created the all the problems, I should by a raffle ticket to benefit the local democrats. He seemed totally lost when I asked “When have the libertarians been in charge and able to create these problems?” Our disagreements are areas where we don’t see the topic the other side is arguing.

Abortion – one side argues against killing babies, the other side argues for reproductive freedom. Is it any wonder that, as we talk past each other we don’t find areas of agreement? Does political rhetoric exist only to arouse and anger its own side?

As the final episode of MASH aired, I drove a U-Haul to Trinidad, Colorado. February 28, 1983. At the time, Mount San Rafael was the only hospital in the US performing transexual surgeries, and the only surgeon doing the work was Stanley Biber. I suppose I started seeing transexuals quite a while before the typical American – hell, I was teaching at the little college in the nation’s transexual surgery capital. I knew that Dr. Biber insisted on a lot of psych and counseling before he uncased his scalpel. I suppose I think that his pre-surgical caution is still justified. The relevant comment is “First, do no harm.” I don’t argue the topic – but I know my views on something I’ve observed for 40 years.

I’m a fiscal conservative – and I’ve found that arguments against supporting fiscal conservativism usually break down to accusations of heartlessness. It’s hard to discuss the topic – I talk for being able to maintain a strong currency and I’m told that I’m heartless. There’s no convincing when the argument is on different topics.

I think back to a transexual student’s Southern Baptist parents – depressed that there would be no grandchildren, and his (my student’s) concerns that he wasn’t comfortable as male. The love was there – but the common ground wasn’t.

I recall a classmate, insisting there was no voter fraud. Using logic, all I had to do was document a single case. I did. The result was anger and discounting the conviction as only one case. We don’t even agree on the rules of debate.

So I’ll continue to vote against candidates who vote against my interests. I don’t expect them to understand why. As we get more Republicans officeholders, there will probably be more Republicans who disappoint me. Then as we get more Democrats in office there will be more of them voting against my interests. As Milei said, “Viva la libertad! Carajo!”