Skip to main content

Six word political philosophies. Why not?

Smithmag is a story-telling website that is home to the well-known project Six-Word Memoirs.

This started with the apocryphal story that Ernest Hemingway was challenged in a bar (where else?) to write a short story in six words, to which he replied: "For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn."

Smithmag has opened this up to both celebrities and ordinary people, with often astounding results that you can read both on the site and in the new book.

My entry was "Twins, adoption, grandchild. Cats. Joyous chaos." Ok, Steve Colbert's "I really thought it was funny" is a lot better.

But, anyway, here's my thought: what about six-word political philosophies and candidate description?

Here's my first take on Libertarianism:

Government shouldn't pay mortgages, mandate helmets.


Not quite what I wanted; only a small part of the philosophy. Six words is tough.

Second try:

Live free or die. Still valid.


Still not satisfactory, but you get the idea. You could also use it to criticize a political philosophy, like Liberalism:

Cradle to grave Nanny suffocates me.


(To my progressive/liberal friends: not intended as a cheap shot; I just figured out that it is easier in six words to lampoon or criticize an idea in six words than to explain it.)

So in the interests of fair play, here's a critique of Libertarianism in six words:

No government. Gated communities. Children starve.


I was also thinking about political candidates.

Say, maybe, Barack Obama:

Change? Cheap talk or necessary medicine?


Perhaps McCain?

Straight talk's cheap when emulating Dubya.



So this is my challenge. I realize that this is not one of those blogs that generates hundreds of comments. but maybe I can get some of you to take a shot at:

Describing your own political ideology (or criticizing somebody else's).

Describing, criticizing, or even lampooning a current candidate or major political figure.

You get extra points if your description is so good that the six words will actually communicate the idea or person you're talking about. (I'm still working on that.)

Anybody game?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve I can describe my political philosophy succiently:

Liberty, Fraternity, Equality or Death.
Anonymous said…
Here's one for you:

"Leave me the fuck alone, please."

By the way, you'll be happy to know (maybe?) that reading your site has made me realize in many ways I may actually be more of a "libertarian" than a "liberal." Keep up the good work.
Anonymous said…
Oh, and here's my take on the political philosophy of Dave Anderson at FSP and those of his ilk.

"Gays can marry? Sky is falling."

"Equal protection only if we agree."
Bowly said…
I'll steal Roderick Long's Libertarianism In One Sentence: "Other people are not your property."

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...