On his show yesterday, Hugh Hewitt has posed another question for consideration regarding the upcoming election.
The choice between Bush and Kerry is like the choice between...
(What and What)?
The question took me back to a previous point that was made here regarding the fundamental choice - to live or not. It happens to be a basic aspect of Objectivist principle with which I agree. Unlike animals, Man has no instinct for survival. It must be chosen, and pursued as a string of judgments tending toward success. Situations present themselves continuously for consideration with decisions predicated on experience within a rational universe that demands the acknowledgment of truth.
Truth is a commodity of consumption among fiction, propaganda, conjecture, and opinion. The curse/blessing of Man is the imperative of volition. Of these things we choose from one or the other in the same way that we select between food and poison. The mind is more susceptible to poison than the body. The body sustains attack and responds with action. Survival is determined by strength and remediation. The mind however, is open to perpetual input. There are no immediate indicators in the head that one has become polluted with bad ideas – except and in terms of the contradictions that unfold within one’s metaphysical existence. Poor judgment tends toward a string of decisions that render consequences with deteriorating benefits that ultimately leads to the surrender of liberty... or to the cessation of life. Ultimately the responsibility for the primacy of truth rests with each of us. Good judgment does not simply require the recognition of the difference between food and poison, but acknowledges the quality of sense not to consume the one that will kill you.
The choice in November between Bush and Kerry is no different. Its simply like choosing between food and poison.