Let's face it, Mark Twain hit the nail on the head when he said, "The trouble with common sense is it ain't too common." Our current political scene does not make sense. It is schizo. The Republicans and conservatives are inconsistent, as are the Democrats and liberals. I don't even know what those terms stand for anymore. I tried to express this recently in an email to a good friend of mine who has the intelligence to come up with good answers. Here is an excerpt:
...Most confusing to me are the terms conservative and liberal. I research much on cnn, fox, msnbc. etc. I have also been listening to the different talk shows such as the absurd Limbaugh, the boring Hannity, and the entertaining Savage. None of it is consistent or adds up.
During the 2000 and 2004 elections all conservatives talked about were pro-life and marriage. Now that is nowhere to be found. Instead, they tear apart a Baptist preacher for raising taxes once upon a time in Arkansas or tear apart McCain for trying to get campaign spending under control. All the while the fact that the current president is the most liberal spending president in history is ignored. On the other side the Dems constantly espouse equality for all classes and races in the country but are likely to screw over a once in a lifetime candidate (IMO) by resorting to the rich and mighty superdelegates anointing a family that has shady ties all over the world. Back to the conservatives, and we have them being hateful toward people wanting to conserve the environment and can’t seem to put two and two together that our military has killed an average of 3000 civilians each month since the war on terror started, which isn’t exactly pro-life. Back to the liberals, and we have them talking a lot about socialized healthcare with no mention that this is already being done with veterans and Native Americans. You would think that they might point to these examples and talk about how it has worked and not worked. Back to the conservatives, and we see them having no problem with oil companies making record profits but having big problems with any talk about alleviating poverty in the world so that children might actually grow up to see the US in a good light and not want to terrorize us. Back to the liberals, and we see them talk about the plight of the blue-collar worker, yet they have no answers to illegal immigration and those blue-collar workers. Back to the other side, and we see them being staunchly against stem cell research because they say it destroys a living being (even though the science is getting beyond that), yet they fail to recognize that IUD’s and other forms of birth control abort millions more embryos than the relatively small number that are destroyed in stem cell research.
Neither side makes sense to me because it seems their main motives are to be divisive and vengeful. That is why a guy like me caught in the middle is drawn to Obama. I don’t know if I agree with everything about him. I don’t know if he can make good on his promises. I do know that he inspires and unites and is a breath of fresh air. His speeches are amazing...
After tonight's debate between Obama and Clinton, I am even more confident that Obama is the guy to bring some positives out of the mess Bush has created. He is an expert communicator, and I think he conveyed an intelligent stance on what to do about illegal immigration, as well as a number of other issues.
2 Comments:
This friend you speak of is struggling to put into words the difference between today's Republican and Democrat. On our local level there are virtually no dfifferences. On a national level, there are too many to describe. I hesitate to discuss them because inevitably someone will point out that my characterisation of a party's particular belief is not true because they support that party yet don't hold that same belief. So, at the risk of offending all, I submit that GENERALLY Republicans believe that less government is better, that a strong national defense is paramount because "open dialogue" isn't always the best policy, that public assistance should be temporary and goal-oriented, that free-market principles shall guide the economy and that our laws and constitutions shall be interpreted literally. Democrats believe that the government is better equipped to provide and problem-solve for the people. They tend to believe that negotiations should trump deterrance. And they believe that our laws and constitutions should be molded over time to adjust to changing public sentiment.
That all being said, there are few among us who fit neatly into those categories, of which there are many more I omitted. Frankly, an examination of the remaining four candidates proves that. And, honestly, I'm less than thrilled with the choices we have.
We need change, I'll acknowledge that. But I don't believe the most liberal voting Senator, with only a few years in Congress under his belt, is the man to do it. He's the best orator, but I've yet to hear how he can fulfill a fraction of his promises without raising my tax rate to 50% or higher. I really hate to type this, but I would be more likely to support Al Gore than Obama or Clinton (or McCain for that matter)
If I were considering supporting Obama, I'd ask the following questions. 1) What do you propose to do about Iran's quest for a nuclear program? 2) How do you intend to contine to keep Al Qaueda from attcking the U.S. and its allies? 3) Do you intend to raise taxes? If so, by how much? If not, how do you intend to fund the nu,erous programs/expansions you are proposing? 4) Describe your ideal Supreme Court Justice.
I'm not picking on Obama, I just want to know a little something about him other than he is not Hillary Clinton.
By
Anonymous, at 8:39 PM
Beech always comes through with good insights.
Thanks for posting them. I'd give you an "A" or "A-". The minus because some Libertarians out there may think that you described their basic platform and not the Republican platform.
I like that you point out the GENERAL beliefs of each side, and if we start putting each and every issue under a microscope then we will not get anywhere. At the same time, I think it's fair to say that the political landscape is ever evolving. For example it has been said that a 1960 Democrat JFK would be a stauncher conservative Republican than McCain today. The evolution of the sides and idealogies, as well as the general platform versus specific issue arguments, proves to me that it is no big deal that some conservative journal voted Obama the most liberal senator. What does that mean? Who voted on it? What was their criteria? I think from your argument and my posts we can both agree to get past the boxes and labels. With that said, I feel that your questions for Obama are very fair and worthy. I can't answer for him or defend him. I wish he would tackle some of these more head on.
In closing though, I would suggest that although you and I agree on at least 90% and lean basically the same way, maybe the biggest difference, and the reason I am not afraid to support an "unknown", is that as a history major I understand that the USA has not always played the "good guy". When I look at US history I see both sides use "big governement" whenever it fits their needs. I see both sides use propaganda to keep their power. I would be much more comfortable knowing my tax dollars are going to help others than going toward billion dollar bombers. I look at US history and see America constantly trying to rectify things through might and power. Just think what our country could do if we used our money and resources the way Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea) has done.
By
CHUSKA NATIVES, at 8:20 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home