For me, Obama is saying so many things that resonate with exactly what I want to hear, that I'm suspicious. I've noticed that my pseudo libertarian, free market economics world view has begun to crumble when my paycheck comes up short each month. The sweet sound of protectionism and the promise that the government will solve all my problems is intoxicating. A couple more stimulus checks and I'll be out of credit card debt. It's the lure of the Ring of Power, however, so I'm trying not to give in too much. It's tempered by Obama's backsliding on promises that frankly I had wished he hadn't made. The backsliding is problematic, although the message is much improved. It blows most of his credibility for me, however.
Before George W., I might have slipped into middle-aged Republicianism. However, now I plain don't trust them and doubt I ever will. I wonder if this is true with other people like me in the country? I wonder if Republicans will become a dying breed, much like bridge players? At best, they'll re-organize and let those more in-step with the country run their party, with a promise never to listen to half-wits again or those with shiny new theories they want to employ on the world stage. They can promise, right? It doesn't matter if you believe in half of what a group says, if the other half has elements you find repugnant. Democrats, for me, are at worst, misguided and ethically challenged, rootless opportunists. But that's a classic definition of a politician, right?
>I wonder if this is true with other people like me in the country?
ReplyDeleteNo, not for me anyway and I suspect we are about the same age. I used to be left wing liberal until after 9-11 I slowly began to see the world and local politics a lot different. Each day that goes by makes more more of a republican, not less.
>I wonder if Republicans will become a dying breed, much like bridge players?
Not likely.
>At best, they'll re-organize and let those more in-step with the country run their party, with a promise never to listen to half-wits again or those with shiny new theories they want to employ on the world stage.
I firmly believe that in the years to come Bush will be seen in a much different light than he currently is and The War on Terror will be seen as an historical turning point for the better.
Wow, talk about two diametrically opposed outcomes from the same event. I was pretty much a conservative leaning libertarian prior to 9/11, but as the bush administration responded in ways that defied logic, and the Republican party followed along in lock-step, they forever lost me.
ReplyDeleteHow can you have a war on a concept? It is like saying you are going to go to war against the color purple.
ReplyDeleteBush et al sold a war that the war fighters in the Pentagon admit can't be won by the military. Unless we find a way to prevent the terrorists from recruiting new members, it is a fight we can't win. The only way to dissuade people from blowing themselves up is to have jobs available for them and give them something to live for. Poor people with no education, little means of support and strong religious haranguing have nothing to lose.
The only historical turning point we are at is allowing the terrorists access to running whole countries - Hamas in Palestine is the best example of the unintended consequences of the Neo-cons forcing Democracy on a people not ready for the concept. It is also why we look the other way in Egypt when they suppress the Muslim Brotherhood who would likely win a free and fair election if allowed to run.
Actually, I think "anonymous" is right when they say that "The War on Terror will be seen as an historical turning point for the better."
ReplyDeleteIt's just that it won't be seen this way by us Americans who have found themselves citizens of a nation in decline as a direct result of the massive deficit spending that "The War on a Tactic" has caused.
The moment I knew that the neocons (and therefore the Republicans) weren't any kind of conservative that I'd ever identified with was when Cheney said "deficits don't matter."
As a nation we're finding out the hard way just how much they do matter, and will continue to do so no matter who is the next president. The difference being that in my lifetime only Democrats have managed to lower the deficit while Republicans have done nothing but add to it.
You do realize that the Neocons, led by Grover Norquist, have wanted to cause the deficit to balloon since the Reagan years. They figured out that the only way to gut Social Security, Medicare and other, as they see them, socialist programs, was to bankrupt the Federal government. Then everything has to go by Defense and State and the little guys can fend for themselves.
ReplyDeleteRepublican Conservatives swept into Congress in 1994 and pushed for deficit reduction. President Clinton saw the writing on the wall, and went along with it.
ReplyDeleteWho gets the credit/blame when one party controls Congress and the other party is in the White House?
Granted, the Republicans got a little stupid when they found themselves running Congress and the White House in the earlier part of this decade. "Bipartisanship" meant that every hog (Dem or Rep) found a place at the trough, and the pork flowed freely.
What we found was that many Republicans are not conservatives - they are just as bent on forcing their personal (and whacky) beliefs and social experiments on the public as the worst "nanny-state" libs. And neither party is shy about wasting tax money on their schemes and boondoggles.
Frankly the best of all worlds is when our government is split between the two parties. Each cancels out the other's worst proclivities. It also takes a smart President who knows how to work the system which is why Clinton was so successful and Bush has not been. He has no ability to compromise which is what it takes when each party has a say.
ReplyDelete